[ Page 2547 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Bids for Systems Corporation computer replacement. Mr. Levi –– 2547

Property tax. Mr. Stephens –– 2548

Performance of inquests. Mr. Lauk –– 2548

Human Rights Commission report. Mr. Gibson –– 2549

Reserve status for Akamina-Kishenina. Mr. Nicolson –– 2549

Urban Transit Authority Act (Bill 19) Report stage.

Mr. Levi –– 2550

On the amendment.

Mr. Levi –– 2550

Mr. Macdonald –– 2551

Mr. Barber –– 2552

Ms. Brown –– 2553

Mrs. Dailly –– 2555

Mr. Barnes –– 2555

Partnership Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 39) Second reading.

Mr. Cocke –– 2557

Mr. Gibson –– 2558

Mr. Barrett –– 2558

Mr. Nicolson –– 2559

Division on the amendment –– 2561

Division on third reading –– 2561

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2561

Mr. Levi –– 2561

Mr. Stephens –– 2562

Mr. Lauk –– 2562

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2562

Second reading –– 2562

Partnership Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 39) Committee stage.

On section 4. On section 5.

Mr. Stephens –– 2562

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2562

Mr. Lauk –– 2562

Report and third reading –– 2563

Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 37) . Committee stage.

On Section 1.

Mr. Lauk –– 2563

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2563

Report and third reading –– 2563

Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 35) Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Lauk –– 2563

On section 4.

Mr. King –– 2564

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2564

Report and third reading –– 2564

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 24) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2564

Mrs. Wallace –– 2564

Second reading –– 2565

Range Act (Bill 13) Committee stage.

on section 9 as amended.

On section 10.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2565

Mrs. Wallace –– 2565

On section 15.

On section 16.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2566

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2566

On section 27.

Mr. King –– 2566

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2566

On section 11.

On section 37.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2567

Mr. King –– 2568

On section 45.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2568

On section 13.

Mr. King –– 2568

On section 48.

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2569

Mrs. Wallace –– 2570

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 2570

Report and third reading –– 2573

Mineral Act Clarification Act (Bill 25) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2573

Mr. Gibson o –– 2573

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2574

Second reading o –– 2574

Science Council of British Columbia Act (Bill 23) . Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 2574

Coal Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 27) Committee stage.

On section 4. On section 19.

Mr. Gibson –– 2574

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2574

On section 19 as amended.

On section 7.

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2574

On section 8.

On section 20.

Mr. Gibson –– 2574

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2575

Mr. Lea –– 2575

On section 21.

Division on section 8 –– 2576

On section 10.

On section 21 as amended.

Mr. Gibson –– 2576

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2576

On section 13.

Mr. Gibson –– 2576

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2576

On section 22.

On section 16.

Mr. Gibson –– 2577

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2577

Mr. Lea –– 2577

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2577

On section 27.

Mr. Gibson –– 2578

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2578

Division an third reading –– 2582

Appendix –– 2583

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KERSTER: Mr. Speaker, I have a somewhat lengthy but very special introduction today. Although my wife Eileen has attended the opening ceremonies in this House, this is the first time that I've had the honour to introduce her to all members of this assembly, since this is her first attendance in the gallery.

I am equally honoured to introduce three other very special and very fine people also seated in your gallery, sir, for the first time: my daughter Marjorie; my youngest son Bradley; and visiting us from Hawaii, my mother-in-law, Mrs. Henry Bartels, of Honolulu, who brings the warm spirit of aloha to this assembly as only a native Hawaiian can.

Mr. Speaker, I have told my family and my mother-in-law how nicely everyone in this assembly always treats nip-, and I hope on this day all hon. members won't let me down.

I would ask the House to make these very special guests welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, today it gives me great pleasure in asking the Legislature to join with me in welcoming the mayor of Prince Rupert, Peter Lester, who has traveled all the way down here today so he can get special mention in the House by myself.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I want to join the hon. member for Prince Rupert in welcoming an old friend.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my greetings to the mayor of Prince Rupert. It is perhaps going to his head, but I understand, in fact, he intends to visit Prince Rupert in the near future.

Oral questions.

BIDS FOR SYSTEMS CORPORATION

COMPUTER REPLACEMENT

MR. LEVI: To the Minister of Finance: yesterday the B.C. Systems Corporation issued a press release announcing the awarding of a contract for replacement of a computer to the IBM Company of Canada based in Victoria. The release said: "The award was given to the low est evaluated bidder, after evaluation of the performance characteristics and total three year life cycle cost to the corporation. In all cases, IBM was the lowest evaluated bidder." As I understand it, three people bid: IBM, Amdol of Toronto, and Itel of Canada.

Can the minister confirm that the IBM bid was $3.8 million, that Amdol's was $2.95 million and that Itel's was $2.5 million? Perhaps I might add an additional question: was IBM allowed to change its bid?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I think the figures the member quoted on the three initial bids by the three tenderers are approximately correct. But those figures were not, in fact, changed - that was the second question.

The system of evaluating the bids Look into consideration other factors such as the nature, power and size of the equipment, the eventual resale value and the capability of servicing of this equipment during the course of the three-year contract. This was part of the tender information companies were advised to supply in terms of their quotes. This evaluation system was arrived at to determine which, in fact, was the most attractive bid.

MR. LEVI: On a supplementary, as I understand it, the minister indicated that those figures I quoted were basically correct, and that there were no changes. But the press release states that, in all cases, IBM was the lowest evaluated bidder, and that the award value for the three-year period approximates $3 million. That's a long way from the $3.8 million that IBM tendered.

1-1y question, again, is: was IBM allowed to change its bid?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as I said before, no, IBM was not allowed to change its bid; but the team established to evaluate the bids re-evaluated them on the premises that 1 just described, to arrive at a tender which would be approximately $3 million - as mentioned in the press statement.

MR. LEVI: I have a further supplementary question. Could the minister inform the House - and I want to get this carefully, because I asked him a question once before and blew it -whether the B.C. System Corporation placed a reserve in 1977 on a piece of equipment, 3033, in anticipation of the purchase or lease of this equipment, in that preordering is an IBM policy?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This question was asked over a year ago, 1 believe. A reserve was placed by Systems in terms of a soft order, which is merely a reservation for the equipment so that they stand in line to be

[ Page 2548 ]

offered one when the time comes. It's simply a soft order in terms of a reservation for the availability of the equipment. It is not a firm order.

MR. LEVI: On a final supplementary, could the minister inform the House whether similar soft orders were made with Amdol and Itel for similar kinds of equipment?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I am advised that a verbal reservation was placed with Andol. I'm not able to answer the question with regard to the other one. It may not have been a requirement of these companies, in order for them to have available the equipment that has been referred to.

PROPERTY TAX

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I have another question concerning property tax that I would like to direct to the Premier. Yesterday he took my question on notice on behalf of the Minister of Finance. Would the Premier prefer I direct my question to the Minister of Finance?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member can direct his question to whomever he likes, but the responsibilities for different functions of government are well known to him. I'm quite willing to deal with questions on behalf of all ministers, but it takes me longer to get the information.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I think it's perhaps quite apparent that I might get a more direct answer from the Minister of Finance. I would ask him whether it was his intention, in the new assessment methods established, to shift the heavier burden of the tax to industrial property. Was that your intention?

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, Mr. Speaker, the object of the system was to equalize assessments approximating the relationship of values from the previous frozen system.

MR. STEPHENS: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister then: if it was not his intention to shift that burden, is he aware that in fact the new assessment did shift the tax burden to industrial property and increased it by approximately 25 per cent? Are you aware that that has actually happened?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that would be the case. There would have been properties that were undervalued and receiving a bargain in the past, which would be equalized by being raised. And properties that were being overassessed would have been decreased. On an approximate average across the province, the relationship between the taxable values before on commercial properties was the same as that chosen of about 25 per cent - within about I per cent either way.

MR. STEPHENS: On a final supplementary, I'd like to ask the minister whether or not he is aware that in the Penticton area the increase of taxes on industrial property has gone as high, in some cases, as 198 per cent and, if he is aware of that, his intention whether that was.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, in any individual municipality the choice of one of four options by that municipality would dictate whether they had an immediate impact on any increases or whether there was a phase-in of three years. So you'd have to look at any individual municipality to realize whether this impact was that strong.

Secondly, in any individual municipality they might have been underassessed where commercial or industrial properties were concerned compared to the provincial average.

PERFORMANCE OF INQUESTS

MR. LAUK: A question to the acting Attorney-General - is it the Minister of Labour? On January 17,1978, the Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Pearson, issued a directive to all coroners to cut back on autopsies because they were too expensive. Yesterday Dr. Spiller, the coroner in Vernon, stated that he has not held any inquests for a year since last July, even though there have been at least three or four cases in that time that he felt merited full public inquests. He says he has not ordered inquests because there was not sufficient money to do so.

My question is in two parts. The first part is: will the Attorney-General now indicate to the House that he will withdraw and cancel the memorandum that went to all coroners on January 17 of this year?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I'll take the question as notice.

MR. LAUK: The second part of the question is: will the Attorney-General indicate to the Legislature the decision that has been made with regard to proclamation of the Coroners Act?

[ Page 2549 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Attorney-General has that particular matter under consideration. I can't give the member a response, but I can assure him that his questions today will be referred to the Attorney-General immediately.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, there are two cases that I have brought before this House. There are the re the ports of Vernon coroner and other coroners. This is not a casual problem.

I would ask again, and I direct my question to the Premier: will the Premier direct his cabinet ministers to proclaim the Coroners Act to solve this very serious problem? Will the Premier order the cabinet to proclaim this Act?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I believe the Premier has the question.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm asking the Premier to order his cabinet to proclaim the Coroners Act. This is not a casual problem. There are coroners all over this province who are contacting me.

MR. SPEAKER: Will the hon. member please take his seat?

MR. LAUK: The cavalier attitude is absolutely disgraceful. I would ask that the Premier answer that question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Other members may wish to ask questions. Would the member please take his seat?

HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION REPORT

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, the last question was to the Minister of Labour as acting Attorney-General. I wish to ask him a question as acting Minister of Labour.

Section 14 (1) of the Human Rights Code states that the director of the Human Rights Commission "shall annually prepare with the commission and submit to the Minister of Labour a report of the activities of the commission, the director and the boards of inquiry during the preceding calendar year." I ask the minister: has he seen a copy of the report which was prepared for the 1977 calendar year?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, since it is my understanding that earlier on this year the minister had received a report from the commission, does the minister not consider it to be the report referred to in section 14?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GIBSON: The February, 1978, edition of the B.C. Government News contains an article giving statistics from the report. Can the minister explain how the B.C. Government News obtained the statistics before he has seen the report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I can't explain how the B.C. Government News or any other member of the media produces what they produce.

RESERVE STATUS FOR

AKAMlNA-KISHENINA

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of the Environment: in view of the information recently disclosed that in three of the five cutting areas of the Akaminar-Kishenina area planned by the Forest Service for harvest, 19,000 acres, I believe, have no observable kill from mountain pine beetle and that the decision to remove this wilderness from recreational reserve status was based on a federal infestation survey of the wrong area, has the minister decided to restore the full reserve status to this wilderness area and to cancel plans for logging?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How can you be so consistently mixed up?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, it's 1,900 acres, not 19,000. The answer to the question is no.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, would the minister release the ELUG report, which is dated May 1, on this area?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Since the date apparently is not definite and which report the member is referring to is not known, the answer to that question would be no.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I move the House proceed by leave to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, firstly I'd call report on Bill 19. It's recorded in Orders of the Day that the document is not printed, but it is in everybody's bill book.

[ Page 2550 ]

MR. SPEAKER: order, please, hon. members. In order to preserve the practices of the House and the intent of the standing order, I must insist that the bill must be listed as printed in Orders of the Day. So leave must be granted.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 19, Mr. Speaker.

URBAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY ACT

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

MR. LEVI: I wish to move an amendment, Mr. Speaker, to the motion that Bill 19 be read a third time now by deleting the word "now" and substituting instead "six months hence."

MR. SPEAKER: The amendment appears to be in order, hon. members. It is an unusual procedure in this House; however, I must remind all hon. members that it is in order. However, as the scope of debate is so limited and I fear that I will be calling for relevancy so frequently, I want to warn the hon. member in advance.

HON. MR. MAIR: You've said enough, Norm.

MR. LEVI: Well, I don't know that I should be that intimidated.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not in any way going to canvass all of the previous debate. But I do want to say this: since the bill was introduced - there was a suggestion by the minister that everybody had a chance to look at it and to consider the implications - we have had in the last two or three days a statement by the city council of Vancouver urging the minister to delay the bill. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition received a telegram from Mr. J.M. Campbell, chairman of the greater Victoria regional district.

MR. BARBER: Greater Vancouver, Norman.

MR. LEVI: Jack Campbell, I'm sorry. I was thinking of the other guy; I apologize. It was Jack Campbell, chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District board of directors. I'd like to quote the telegram:

"The Greater Vancouver Regional District board adopted unanimously the following statement in respect to the Urban Transit Authority Act, Bill [9:

"That the Premier and the Legislature be advised that the board of directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District welcome the introduction of the Urban Transit Authority Act as a good first step in dealing with the urban transportation problem, but that the Act should not be passed in its present form until the amendments are made to take care of the following concerns.

"The board does not wish the property tax used to pay transit deficits unless equivalent local costs are removed from the property tax base - for example, schools or hospital costs.

"The board contends that the financial formula should result in an overall benefit to the taxpayers of the region who are presently paying more than their share of transportation costs.

"The board believes that machinery to ensure the co-ordination of road and transportation expenditure should be provided in the legislation.

"The board contends that more authority should be given to the commission in the lower mainland area. It should be appointed locally rather than provincially.

"J.M. Campbell, Chairman of the Greater Vancouver Regional District board of directors'."

Mr. Speaker, this is a late plea, albeit late because the bill has been down, but presumably what has been happening in the local administrations is that they have been trying to anticipate in some respect exactly what the provincial involvement is going to be in the financial formula. That has not been forthcoming, so the local administrations have simply had to look at their own future costs. In trying to work out a variety of formulae they have arrived at the decision that the bill in its present form, because there is an absence of any information regarding the financial formula, is going to fall very heavily on the local taxpayer, and they are quite right. Having given up waiting for the minister to tell this House and the taxpayers just what the provincial role is going to be, they are asking for a hoist of this bill for six months. That's fair enough. I think that it is far too important. The minister has taken two and a half years to bring the bill in.

Let's face it, the Greater Vancouver Regional District, which certainly has the major part of the transportation system in the province, is probably looking at an incredible number of millions of dollars of costs, and they want to know from the minister exactly what is going to be the contribution by the provincial government. It's very unfortunate

[ Page 2551 ]

that that is missing from the information in this bill, because we get into the same situation that we've debated a number of times in this House - the continuing shifting of responsibility for the tax issue in this province to the local taxpayer, rather than communalization through the general revenue of the province.

Mr. Speaker, the hoist we wish to have supported is that in this case - and very of ten with other bills, but particularly in this case - more time is needed so that the local authorities, the city of Vancouver and all of the other regions, can have a better understanding. And the minister has an obligation to put the information before them.

The other thing, of course, is that the question of light rapid transit has been debated in the city of Vancouver for the past 20 years, and now it seems to be a thing of the past. There appears to be no possibility whatsoever that there will ever be rapid transit in the city of Vancouver, because the minister has not indicated in any way what he is prepared to do to assist. All he says is that it now opens up the possibility of rapid transit. Well, I suggest to you, Mr. Minister, it does not; it closes it for ever and ever; there will not be a light rapid transit system in the lower mainland area based on the contents of this bill.

I would think that all members of this House, particularly my colleagues on both sides of the House who represent the city of Vancouver and areas that are involved in the Greater Vancouver Regional District - and the people from the north who have spoken, sometimes eloquently, about how they want to share the transportation - in what they have to say in respect to the government's role in the financial formula - because, without a govern-ment role, there is not going to be a transportation system as we have known it in the past, especially in terms of the buses....

We can only see the failure of the government to tell us what is going to happen. We're going to get reduced service; it's going to become more costly, and there are going to be direct job losses as a result of this.

I would urge everybody in this House to support the amendment to hoist this bill for six months.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) .

HON. MR. GARDOM: If he uses the words "six months" he's tedious and repetitious.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm being interrupted by a Vancouver member. This bill is so much puffery, you know. It just spells the end of financial assistance by the provincial government and the end of leadership by the provincial government in the field of transit.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have you read it?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I've read it and I have listened to the debate and I find that the minister has not provided the financial formula. He has not provided the financial formula that is the only resource that will make the thing work. He said this in his press release of June [3: "This legislation will end years of indecision and concern over the development and financing of urban transit by providing a formula which will apply fairly to all regions of the province."

The legislation doesn't provide a formula. The minister hasn't come up with a formula. He hasn't said to what extent this provincial government is dumping its responsibilities, particularly on the greater Vancouver area. The member who preceded me said this is going to mean higher fares, poorer service and putting light rapid transit in the Vancouver area into a deep sleep.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We are going beyond the scope of the contents of the bill.

MR. MACDONALD: No. Mr. Speaker, I submit my remarks are directly relevant to this point: until that minister tells us what the provincial government is going to do to put resources and leadership behind rapid transit, and transit generally, in the greater Vancouver area, this bill should not be passed. That's what we're saying. This press release is simply a false statement made to the people of British Columbia.

Is the minister going to share 50-50 the operating losses? Is it going to be 75-25 for capital losses? lie doesn't say. That's the kind of death knell of rapid transit that we have been getting in this house from that minister.

Mr. Speaker, that is the reason we support a hoist. It has been argued for by the city council of Vancouver. It has been argued for by the GVRD. That delay is imperative until that minister speaks up and says whether this bill is simply more than a new framework which we don't need. We need help for transit. In his blurb, where this bill is introduced, he says that the formula will be set by regulation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We

[ Page 2552 ]

cannot go into the contents of his speech. We can only go into the contents of the bill itself .

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have here a bill which, according to the one press release of the minister, will provide the formula. And in his blurb he says the formula will be provided by regulation.

Now when this Legislature is considering what resources should be placed at the disposal of regional districts and cities by the provincial government, it is not good enough that we pass a bill saying that the coalition cabinet is going to decide what resources will be given to rapid transit, and what resources will be given to transit generally. This is a total abdication of responsibility by that minister, to say how much the province is going to spend on capital costs and on operating losses.

What you're doing with the deficit running in the greater Vancouver area now of about $65 million is dumping that on the people of Vancouver and saying: "Pick up the mess." You're dumping it on the people of greater Vancouver and saying: "Pick it up in property taxes; pick it up in increased gasoline taxes; pick it up in your electricity rates." This is an abdication of responsibility for transit by the minister and this government, and the bill should be hoisted until that minister forthrightly comes up and tells the Legislature what that formula is.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, from the beginning the official opposition has opposed this bill and we do so now in this unusual step of asking, during third reading, for a hoist to allow the minister another six months to make up his mind and to make the announcement that he should have made six months ago.

The announcement that must be made and that can be made, if this amendment is approved today and the six months are granted, is simply this: "What are you going to pay? What share will you accept? What financial burden will you shoulder? What will you require the people of the metro areas and rural areas of this province to pay?" You've had six months to tell us. By virtue of this amendment, we want to give you another six months because so far you have been wilfully neglectful and deliberately irresponsible in refusing to answer the most crucial question of all in regard to transit. How much are you going to pay?

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, once again, Mr. Speaker, that member is indulging in hyperbole. I do not think that any member should be permitted to accuse another member of indulging in wilful neglect. The phrase "wilful. neglect" I find offensive, sir.

MR. SPEAKER: I find the phrase offensive myself. Perhaps the member would withdraw the word "wilful" out of "wilful neglect."

MR. BARBER: Thank you. I will simply talk about neglect and withdraw the word "wilful." The end result is the same. It is neglect for the people of Vancouver and Victoria in particular and, more generally, for the people of British Columbia that sees here today another day of silence regarding the financing of transit in this province. We want six months, because the minister for two and a half years had said nothing about the extent to which that group of car dealers opposite will pay for public transit. We want six months, and that's what the amendment is for, in order that the GVRD, the Capital Regional District and the many councils in greater Vancouver and greater Victoria will have an opportunity to study the real meaning of this bill. They asked for a delay for the same reason we do; they asked for a delay because the government refuses to attach a dollar value to its transit intentions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. hon. member, we cannot move and wander far afield in a debate now; we cannot talk about the principle of a delay. We must strictly limit our remarks to the contents of the bill - "strictly, " says May. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, if there is no dollar value attached to Bill 19, the bill has no value at all, save the paper it's printed on. If there is no commitment - and this is why we ask for a six months' delay....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Again, the member is out of order. We cannot discuss what we might want to see in the bill at this stage; we can only discuss what is actually in the bill at this stage. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: That's right. If I may refer by number and section, I will refer to section 10. A colleague of mine, at greater length, will be mentioning the sharing cost provisions in the bill. What I argue, as official critic on this side for municipal affairs, housing and transit, is that this bill has paper value only if there is no cash value attached to the government's intentions. They need six months, apparently, because the two and a half years they've had apparently have been inadequate to

[ Page 2553 ]

determine the amount of money that the car dealers opposite will contribute to transit.

The losses are considerable. The mayor of Victoria, when the bill came down, described it in the following language. He said: "The honeymoon is over." Well, Major Young of Victoria is absolutely correct; the honeymoon is over for the people of Victoria and for the people of Vancouver. The hydro rates will not go down for the people up north and there is no benefit for those guys either. They'll only pay more for capital costs that they never had to shoulder before.

This bill, unless the government announces its financial intentions, cannot be supported at this or any other stage. We oppose it at this stage because of the neglect and the silence and the irresponsibility of the cabinet in its refusal to name the figure for which it will be responsible in transit.

MR. SPEAKER: Which debate is not in order at this stage.

MR. BARBER: Well, I try as hard as I can, Mr. Speaker - reviewing the rules and having been much involved in moving the amendment and in planning it - to state the case as best we can and as simply and as well as we can. It is this.

The government has said nothing about their willingness to finance transit. They've given us ream after boring ream of press releases that talk about good intentions. We have seen no good result. They talk about commitment. We've seen no cash. They talk about money. We've seen nothing in the bank. They refused to name a figure during debate of this bill for what we suspect is a very simple reason. If they did, we would be able to attack the bill all the more forcefully because we will discover what we suspect to be true. The coalition of car dealers opposite will not finance transit generously or appropriately in this province. We ask for another six months before this bill is given third and final reading by the House in order that the cabinet make up its mind and the minister make the announcement.

The minister must know, Mr. Speaker. He couldn't have proposed a bill like this to cabinet without naming a figure. The cabinet must know. They wouldn't have approved such as bill as this without approving a figure. The minister and the cabinet know today what they intend to contribute toward the financing of transit in British Columbia. Why they refuse to tell us today can only be a matter of conjecture. Our conjecture is this: what they propose to pay is woefully inadequate. They want the bill to get through the House before we find out how little it is they propose to pay.

So as a last-ditch attempt to persuade the government to be responsible and to name the figure, without which this bill is meaningless, we ask for support of every member of this House on behalf of the people who are served by transit to delay the bill another six months in order to allow the minister to make the statement tie should have made six months ago.

MR. SPEAKER: With great respect, hon. member, that debate is not in order at this stage.

MR. BARBER: I am happy to honour that and take my place, because I've said what I want to say. I trust the members opposite will vote in favour of the amendment.

MS. BROWN: My intention had been to speak in support of this bill on behalf of my constituency, but since the government, in its infinite contempt for the people of Vancouver, has seen fit to relieve me of that responsibility ....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I don't think that we have impressed upon the hon. members the narrow scope of debate which is possible at this stage. This is not second reading; this is not Committee of the Whole; this is third reading.

MS. BROWN: That was not part of the debate; that was just my preamble to the debate.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: You're really terrified of that too, aren't you? You should take another look at what they've done to your map.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of this hoist for the simple reason that, as the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) and the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said, there is not one single dollar spread out in this piece of legislation....

MR. SPEAKER: This debate is not in order.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, the reason for asking for the hoist of this bill for six months is to allow the minister responsible to make some kind of clear decision and statement as to the dollar cost - the exact dollar figure or percentage figure, as the case may be -

[ Page 2554 ]

which he is willing to contribute towards the implementation of this legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: I understand that, hon. member. However, that debate in not in order at this stage. That debate was in order at a previous stage and, as I recall, was even debated at some length at that time. However, at this precise moment we can only debate the contents of the bill itself - not what we wish was in the bill, not issues for which the bill has a vacuum, but only those precise points which are included in the bill.

MR. GIBSON: On a point of order, if I understand it correctly, the question which is before the House at this moment is that the bill be read not now but six months hence. Therefore it would seem to me that any argumentation that advances the reasons why there should be a postponement of six months directs itself to the question which is before the House at the moment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is absolutely correct - at a previous stage, but not at this stage.

MR. GIBSON: How can that be?

MR. SPEAKER: Because otherwise we would be repeating an argument already settled upon. If that be the premise on which the members seek the floor, then they would be in order in trying to seek the floor, because it's a question we have already settled.

MR. GIBSON: On the same point of order, do I understand your advice to be that while the question before the house is whether or not the bill should be suspended for six months, we are not allowed to speak to that question?

MR. SPEAKER: No, hon. member. What you are permitted to do is to take the issues that are in the content of the bill itself. If there is an objection to an issue that is in the bill, that debate is in order.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, just to clarify the situation, I have reviewed some of the authorities, Mr. Speaker. I just wish to be helpful; 1 don't wish to delay proceedings any longer. A motion to delay second reading six months hence is totally different than a motion to delay third reading for six months.

MR. SPEAKER: As far as scope is concerned, yes.

MR. LAUK: The gravamen of debate for second reading is this: if you want to delay second reading for six months, then you are against the principle of the bill and you wish the principle of the bill to be decided at some later time, in the hope that the government would change its philosophy or policy.

A motion of a delay of six months on third reading of the bill means simply this: the bill in its totality should be rejected and should not be passed at any time. Therefore the motion of itself should be the reason why the bill in its totality should be rejected and not even considered again on principle. In other words, the principle having been passed or rejected is not the point. The principle is over with; the very policy and the principle that's being presented for third reading should never be raised again in this Legislature. That's the gravamen of a motion of this kind on third reading.

And if you understand that, you get a cigar.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps we can conclude the matter by saying this: I appreciate very much the guidance I've received from the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) . Now let me read from the authorities.

The purpose of third reading is to review a bill in its final form, after the shaping it has received in the earlier stages. For this reason, amendment, other than verbal, is no longer permissible on third reading. I have admitted the amendment by virtue of the fact that it was a verbal amendment, without notice. Hence, debate is also confined strictly to the contents of the bill and cannot wander afield as on second reading. It's a different stage; it's a different device. I'm afraid we have to abide by the authorities.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak in support of hoisting this bill in its final form - after the shaping it has received to date.

In its final form the bill says in section 10: "Subject to an annual operating agreement" - the final form having been shaped - "under section 8, where a public passenger transportation system is operated by or on behalf of the British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, its subsidiaries or successors, the Government of Canada, the authority, the Government, a person, or a corporation, which may include a municipality carrying on transit services, the authority and the municipality shall contribute prescribed portions" - "prescribed portions, " rather than dollar figures, which aren't in the bill and which I cannot debate because that would put me out of order

[ Page 2555 ]

- "of the annual operating deficit of the transit service provided under that agreement." The reason why I believe that this bill must be hoisted is that included in the state ment are words like "prescribed portions." "Prescribed portions" is not specific enough. In order not to be out of order, I will not say that what the bill should have are clear, cold, dollar figures attached to this section. If I did, I would be out of order. But then the bill would be acceptable. But because of the present content of the bill under section 10, it is not acceptable.

It is not acceptable to the city of Vancouver. It would not have been acceptable to the people of Vancouver-Burrard, if that constituency still existed. It is not acceptable to the people of Victoria. It's not acceptable to anyone else, as evidenced by the cable which was received from the chairman of the GVRD board of directors.

I believe that the minister responsible for this piece of legislation would like to have the opportunity to shape it some more.

MR. GIBSON: It's not a very shapely bill. It's a skinny bill.

MS. BROWN: It's not a very shapely bill. You are quite right, Mr. Member.

I believe that the minister would welcome the opportunity to hoist this bill for six months so that it can undergo an additional amount of shaping before presenting it to us once again in its final form. Sticking strictly to the motion and speaking in support of it, that is why I ask that the minister seriously consider hoisting this bill for at least six months so that section 10 may be re written to include ... and I'm not going to say dollar figures again, because that would rule me out of order; but if I could I certainly would ask for strict dollar figures in this section.

MR. SPEAKER: A valiant attempt, hon. member.

MRS. DAILLY: I too wish to speak in support of the hoist. I'm doing it as a member from the great municipality of Burnaby. I've talked to a number of Burnaby people, some on the Burnaby council who, as members of GVRD, are, of course, exceedingly concerned with the vagueness of the bill.

How on earth can we stand here and pass a bill when we don't know what the imposition on the local taxpayer is going to be? That is why I would have to take my place in this debate and urge the minister to either come out with specifics so that we know what we are voting for, or hoist the bill until he is prepared to give them to the members in this Legislature. Some rough figures have been worked out, which maybe the minister would be able to counter; but perhaps we can at least get, some figures out of him. As far as we can see from the Burnaby taxpayers point of view, if we had to pick up half the present....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We cannot permit this line of debate, because it is not strictly relevant to the content of the bill. The member must have objection to a content of the bill. Please proceed.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, of course, the objection, as was said before, is basically to the lack of content.

MR. SPEAKER: That debate is not in order, hon. member.

MRS. DAILLY: Would that not be in order? I can't refer to section 10?

MR. LAUK: Give them one out of 10 for lack of content.

MRS. DAILLY: Will this minister stand up in this Legislature and tell us what these regulations that we are supposed to accept blindly are going to entail for the taxpayers and the citizens of British Columbia? If he will not and is unable to do that, we ask him to hoist this bill. Under the present situation in our province today, you are well aware - we all are - of the imposition of taxation on the people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This debate is not in order.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the citizens of Burnaby, I am asking this minister to hoist this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I caution against the debate becoming repetitive, but please proceed.

MR. BARNES: I rise in support of the motion to hoist the bill for six months at least, for obvious reasons. Mr. Speaker, you will recall an amendment put forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to amend the Municipal Act, in which he sought to control the local elected officials by means of a veto respecting the alteration of lands and roads, et cetera. Now he is attempting to gain control over an urban transit authority without any responsibility. He is suggesting that

[ Page 2556 ]

order-in-council appointments be made of elected officials who will have responsibility for designing and providing transit services in three specific areas, but not indicating the sources by which the operation will take place or how the services will be financed.

I think that we have to view the legislation as a political device intended to lessen the burden on the government, specifically B.C. Hydro, and remove some of the specific funds that have provided transit services and place them in the various jurisdictions that have been designated, giving them the burden of going to the electors with propositions that will require new tax levies.

Obviously this isn't a very popular assignment for politicians. Most of us like to think that we could avoid having to assess new taxes. What I think the minister is doing is very cleverly slipping out from under that direct responsibility and making it appear as though there is some autonomy on the part of the local municipalities when, in fact, it's the kind of autonomy that I am sure none of them have been lobbying for. They will have the unceremonious task of imposing fuel tax levies on automobile users if they desire to have the quality of transit service that would be appropriate. They are, in general, being required to make up their minds as to what extent they want to have good service. I think the government has the responsibility to take the lead.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The debate is straying.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, the point I am making is that the legislation is a good attempt; no one is denying that. We do need a co-ordinated, organized transit service, one that is comprehensive and includes the various outlying districts in a consistent and efficient manner. No one is denying this. I think all parties have indicated the need for such a transit authority.

However, the government is playing straight politics. This is a divisive piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. The cabinet has the authority to designate who will sit on the board. It should not take that responsibility, because it suggests it wants the power to control what is going on but it doesn't want the responsibility to ensure that the proper service is provided.

I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is a very experienced politician, Mr. Speaker. Having been a mayor at one time in a municipality, he knows the difficulties that they face. He, more than anyone, knows what tie's doing. He knows the burden he is placing on these local politicians.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure he does, hon. member, but it is not relevant at this particular point.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Who's your quarterback?

MR. BARNES: I'll take my chances on my own, Mr. Minister. I don't need a quarterback.

I know that minister quite well, Mr. Speaker. The trouble is, I can't tell what colour he will be from time to time. He hasn't been red yet, though.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, I must insist that the debate be held strictly relevant.

MR. BARNES: Well, then you should suggest to the minister that he shouldn't interject because he is asking me who is my quarterback and chatting across the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is the member wilfully disobeying an order of the Chair?

MR. BARNES: No way, Mr. Speaker; by no means. But I am moved by the enthusiasm that I am receiving from the other side of the floor. We're all in good humour, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly want to relate specifically to the bill.

I think there is plenty in the bill to take up the time that we have before Lis without having to divert. I want to emphasize what I think is going on with this bill. It is a device to divide the political interests on the local level. You have a minister who is suggesting that he knows best who should sit on the Authority, who should sit on the commission, who should make the decisions. I don't think that it should be his right to make political appointments on the local authorities without taking the responsibility. That's fine if he thinks he knows what's best; then he should provide the programme. If he doesn't think he knows what's best, at least give the local authority the right to also decide who sits on the boards if they're going to have to decide what taxation will be made and they've got to take the responsibility for it.

I would oppose proceeding with the bill in its present form. I do agree in principle. I'm not opposed to the transit authority in principle. I'm only opposed to the lack of content in it, the lack of thrust on the part of the government and of an indication of its sincere desire to really solve a very serious problem.

[ Page 2557 ]

Certainly, it's not going to satisfy people who are in a mood to revolt against further taxation by telling them: "Fine, we'll have a proper system in your area if you're prepared to pay, say, a buck a ride." Using examples from other jurisdictions and suggesting that it's being done in the eastern Canadian cities and in the United States for 50 cents, 75 cents, $1 a ride isn't the basis on which we should make legislation in the province of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This debate is not in order.

MR. BARNES: The idea is that we are unique in our own way and should be relating to our own resources. We should show some initiative, Mr. Speaker, so that there will not always be further burdens an the backs of the taxpayers. What about our resources?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, unless the member is willing to keep his debate relevant to the subject and in order under third reading, I must ask the member to discontinue.

MR. BARNES: This is very difficult. Every speaker has had trouble staying in order. I don't know what the problem is. The bill should be out of order in the first place. We're all having difficulty trying to stay in order. All I'm suggesting is that if the government had shown more initiative in tapping the resources in its taxation programmes for instance, raising the royalties on coal perhaps they would have been in a better position to show some real initiative.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, this debate is not in order and I would like to have you, please, when you cake your seat, study standing order 43. This is not a light matter that we're going through now.

MR. BARNES: No. That's very true, Mr. Speaker. What would you like me to do, Mr. Speaker? Sit down? Stand up?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, you have the floor. Please continue to debate, but the debate must be in order. It's a final notice.

MR. BARNES: I think I will let it suffice, Mr. Speaker, to say that I'm opposed to proceeding at this time and I think that the bill should be hoisted for six months.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons I rose at this point in time is the fact that we are not debating third reading. I think there is a good deal of confusion around third reading. We are debating a hoist motion; we're not debating third reading. Third reading is a very narrow debate. The hoist motion is not a narrow debate. Any reason for hoist, I suggest, is a reason that can be debated, and it's in or (;, :r on that basis.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please cite the authorities for that?

MR. COCKE: The authority, 1r- Speaker, is that on any motion put forward, any argument on that motion.... One doesn't have to cite authorities, because that is the authority.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: That's right, Cocke on legislative practices.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member allow that same latitude to the Chair -to not cite any authorities for rulings?

MS. BROWN: Oh, no. The Chair is different.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think so.

MR. COCKE: We would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we have lost a good deal of confidence in a minister whom, at the very beginning, this whole province had a great deal of confidence in. He produced a piece of legislation that contained such vague elements that his own colleagues, whom he'd worked with for years in municipal councils - he was a mayor and he was associated through the [illegible] with the people that this bill affects.... The sections that I'm talking about are sections 10, 11, 12 -the sections dealing with the sharing of costs. This whole bill, Mr. Speaker, is contemptible in this respect, that it does not tell the local municipality just where it fits in. It does not tell New Westminster, for example - a key area in this ....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I have to remind the hon. member we cannot discuss what is not in the bill, only what is in the bill.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am saying that what is in the bill does not tell New Westminster what its share is and how it's to raise that share. What they do is they say:

"You can attack here, you can attack there." They say, for example, that a municipality can impose power rates. Mr. Speaker, it's so

[ Page 2558 ]

vague. There's no seeming way that any municipality can get a handle on it. Thus we read such items in the paper as that the city of Vancouver is turning its back on its old friend, that person who they felt could give a little bit more thought to the municipal level.

This bill, on that basis, should be hoisted for six months. There's no question about that. I'm sure that everyone in the House will vote- for that hoist. Why wouldn't they? Now that they've thought it over, they realize that it must be hoisted so that something definitive can be done for the municipalities of this province.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to the proposition that is before us, that this bill should be hoisted.

MR. SPEAKER: In third reading.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct, and I will be brief and to the point. The motion, as I understand, is in order by my Vancouver colleague who, along with this bill, is suffering some loss of continuance in his particular role and the way this government treats the city of Vancouver.

The reason I support this motion to hoist is because there is a need for this minister to clear the air on his unspecified attacks that certain municipal officials have been devious and not handling public funds.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What the member says, may be correct but it is not in order.

MR LAUK: On a point of order, I refer the Speaker to standing order 10, the first sentence.

MR. SPEAKER: Of course not. I have to take it in good honour but it doesn't make sense. Please proceed, hon. member. I apologize for the interruption.

MR. BARRETT: I apologize for the interruption too, since I have the floor. I appreciate the Speaker's good humour.

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, there is a need for delay because of the lack of basic understanding and trust and a breakdown of communications when that minister attacks municipal people without naming names, saying that they are devious, and at the same time leaving this bill vague.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not in order.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct, certainly, Mr. Speaker. It is necessary to hold this bill up so an atmosphere of trust, of competence, understanding and sharing can be rebuilt among another level of democratic government. My colleague, the second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) , read this telegram from a responsible group of the board of directors of the Greater Vancouver Regional District.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're not interested at this stage in the content of a telegram, only the content of the bill.

MR. BARRETT: Right, I'm not going to read the telegram, because it has already been read. But I would think that any responsible minister who has to build this programme on trust would stand up and say: "I have made a mistake. I have been generalizing in my criticisms. I hope this bill will work with the cooperation of every level of government, and a six months' hoist would do all of us some good."

Mr. Speaker, it is not good for one level of political representatives to have to deal with blanket condemnations without specifying charges or naming names and hope that this legislation can work. On that basis, I voice my support for the hoist. I hope the minister will apologize to those municipal officials by hoisting this bill.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm puzzled. The minister says I didn't speak in second reading. I did speak in second reading. I supported the bill in second reading.

This is a motion to hoist this bill for a mature consideration for the next six months. The Telex that was read out by the hon. second member for Burrard earlier on gives the very cogent reasons of the GVRD as to why the third reading of the bill should be postponed. I won't read them into the record again, but I might remind the House that the resolution adopted by the GVRD was unanimous, without any distinguishing voice, in spite of the fact they had some other very close votes.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we're not interested in what happens in the GVRD. We're interested in the contents of this bill.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, could I ask, under the terms of standing order 41 - because I'm a little confused by these rulings - that the question be read? I just want to be sure about the question we're speaking to. Your relevancy rulings are confusing me.

[ Page 2559 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Just one minute. I have already forwarded the motion to the table but I will recall it. The motion says: "To amend the motion that Bill 19 be read a third time now by deleting the word 'now' and substituting instead 'six months hence."'

I would remind the hon. member that the amendment further restricts the debate by virtue of the fact that not only are we only interested in the content of the bill but then we are interested only in hoisting the bill for six months with regard to the content of the bill.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I couldn't agree with you more. I would refer you to May, page 411, "Relevancy in Debate." A member, when called on his feet, must direct his speech to the question then under discussion - to that question which you have just read. Standing order 40 (2) says: "No member shall use offensive words against any member of this Rouse" -which doesn't apply - "nor shall he speak beside the question in debate." You have to be directly relevant.

I'm directly relevant to the question as to whether or not this bill should be postponed for six months. That's the whole question before us.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's not the question.

MR. GIBSON; But you just read the question and the question was....

MR. SPEAKER: The question does not open the debate to the scope which we have already concluded in second reading and also in committee. This is third reading, and it is only be cause a motion is before us to hoist the bill that this debate has been opened at all. It is an amendment to a debate in third reading and very, very narrow in its scope; as a matter of fact, I can hardly conceive of something that is in order. However, I have allowed tremendous debate. Please proceed.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I am restricting my remarks as to why third reading should be postponed for six months, and the reasons of the GVRD are cogent in that regard.

I supported this bill in second reading, and I will tell you also that I will support it on third reading if pressed. But I want to say that if an opportunity is given to the municipalities to know in greater detail how the exact provisions of this bill will apply to them, then their negotiating authority during that six months will be much strengthened. I want to strengthen the negotiating authority of local governments because the GVRD is finally learning what we in this House learned a long time ago - that "trust us" legislation with the regulations to be brought in afterwards makes you very nervous. It is making the GVRD nervous. That's why I want the third reading to be postponed for six months in order that the GVRD can properly negotiate with the government.

If this motion to hoist fails, Mr. Speaker, the only recourse of the GVRD and all of the local politicians, if they don't get satisfaction out of the bill as it is about to be passed in third reading, is to seek to defeat the government at the next election. I would have thought that the government would have tried to avoid that by giving a six-month hoist to this bill, and I support that proposition.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak in support of the amendment that third reading of this bill not proceed at this time but be delayed until six months hence.

We have listened to the debate on the bill in principle. Having gone through that, we then looked in detail, reflecting upon what was voted upon in committee and the amendments that have been made in committee. I an convinced, particularly because of the final form of sections 24 and 25, that this bill should not be proceeded with at this time.

Under this bill in its final form we would make it possible to proceed with proclamation within the next six months, so that we could proceed with the provisions of section 25 which not only allow all of the previous sections of this bill to come into force, but provide for the repeal of the Transit Services Act, the Provincial Rapid Transit Subsidy Act and the Provincial Transit Fund Act. Under the existing provisions of these Acts, municipalities are receiving fairly generous subsidy, not only in the greater Vancouver area, as has been referred to by other speakers, but throughout some of the rural areas of the province.

Because of section 24 and other sections in this bill, it is in its final form providing other means by which municipalities can raise taxation. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that if we pass this amendment, we will at least save having to dip into new forms of taxation for some six months. A six-month saving to the people of many of these communities - I understand there are 14 outside of greater Vancouver - will be a saving indeed. That is one of the reasons why I would support this hoist for six months.

[ Page 2560 ]

Under section 24 particularly, the section on increased rates for municipal transit, in terms terms of enabling certain areas to add a " ti" motive fuel tax onto retail dealers for urban transit purposes.... It appears from looking at the combination of these last two Acts that there is going to be a shift away from consolidated revenue, from which a great amount of subsidy to transit occurs at present. There will be a shift towards not only local property tax, but also other taxes which will be levied at the local area. If we were to vote in favour of this six-month hoist, we would be voting in favour of maintaining the status quo for another six months and continuing under the Transit Services Act for at least another six months and maybe more, because it might take a few days beyond that before it was finally proclaimed.

As it is, it's a certainty that this Act will be totally proclaimed the first time that His Honour comes into this House and gives royal assent. In its final form we will be moving from the known to the unknown. There has been an appeal that more light could be shed on the plans of this government. Because of the concern over this bill in its final form and the provisions of section 25, repealing three of the statutes of this province which*have been passed over various years, I feel that in the best interests and in the prudent interests of the people of this province, there should be a cautious delay in giving third reading to this bill. That would prohibit proclamation that would enact section 25 of this bill in its final form.

MR. STEPHENS: I'm going to vote for this amendment. I trust those remarks are in order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I'm in support of this motion because the bill itself as passed in second reading....

MR. SPEAKER: Has the member not yet spoken in this debate?

MR. LAUK: I just drew Your Honour's attention to standing order 10.

I'm in favour of the amendment to suspend passage of third reading of this bill. The bill itself as passed in second reading is a Trojan horse on behalf of the Social Credit government. It imposes five different, taxes on municipalities already heavily burdened with homeowner taxation, and places a money burden of deficit for transit systems upon the municipalities themselves in several different ways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is beautiful second reading debate but not third reading debate.

MR. LAUK: It's not second reading. I'm referring to the contents of the statute itself. The contents read that way. There are five different ways of taxation, and that should be delayed. Those are the particular areas that should be delayed. I think that a six-month review of the situation would help the government.

Through this bill, this minister is imposing a blackjack system of transit upon the municipalities of British Columbia.

MR. SPEAKER: The debate is not in order.

MR. LAUK: He has become a virtual dictator by passing the statute that he is about to pass.

The last point that I wish to make is that this bill delegates so much authority to this transit authority that I fear it is unconstitutional. It certainly is offensive to democratic principles. At this last and final stage, we should not allow this bill to slip through the chamber.

In all sincerity, I say to the minister: could he not find the graciousness and good judgment within himself to accede to the requests of the opposition through this amendment, made on behalf of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and so many people?

He's so gracious, Mr. Speaker, he is not even listening to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I want to thank him for his usual graciousness.

That minister should demonstrate that he is a gracious, honourable minister and accede to the request that we have made. What is the unseemly haste in the passage of this bill?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The debate before us has to do with the content of the bill. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: What is there in the content of the bill, Mr. Speaker, that would urge the minister to pass this bill so quickly? Does he not realize the impact upon the community that this dictatorial blackjack bill will have?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This debate is not in order at this stage.

MR. LAUK: I don't wish to always understate

[ Page 2561 ]

the case.

I think the minister should be called upon to accede to a legitimate request by the regional district and by this opposition through this amendment. Is that in order?

MR. SPEAKER: The last part was in order.

MR. LAUK: I believe that the minister has had time to reflect upon this serious situation. He has now realized the error of his ways and he is going to withdraw this bill for six months.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS - 18

NAYS - 29

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, when shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Now, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 19, Urban Transit Authority Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS - 31

NAYS - 16

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 39, Mr. Speaker.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I just have one or two brief comments in opening second reading. The Partnership Act has long been a subject of criticism from both the legal and accounting professions, and the bill before the House deals with that criticism. Basically the Partnership Act is out of date. It is particularly out of date in the sense that the provisions for a limited partnership are out of date and the provisions for the winding up of a limited partnership are out of date.

I think that all hon. members interested have had the opportunity of looking at the provisions of the bill, particularly as they relate to this important business vehicle which is being used more and more not only in our province but out of province. If 1 think the passage of this bill will make it that much easier for business people in this jurisdiction to use the limited partnership and, very importantly, to allow those who already use that vehicle outside the province to register them inside British Columbia.

MR. LEVI: I note, Mr. Speaker, that this Partnership Amendment Act has nothing to do with marriage, or those kinds of partnerships. Some of the things in there are rather useful, and might be looked at by the Attorney-General at some future date. But I agree with the minister that it does facilitate the ongoing process of doing business in a little more expeditious way, and not such a costly way. Apparently there were some incredible costs incurred when one partner died and they had to pay all the taxes, so I think that in itself is a good move.

Just on the issue of the legalities, I am

[ Page 2562 ]

not a lawyer, so I can speak with no knowledge at all on that and I'm not even going to comment on it.

We are going to support the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just a very few remarks that I have already made to the minister prior to this de bate, and that is that there seem to be a tendency for this minister to codify the common law. I think when we get down to the committee stage we can deal with this in more detail. Generally I like the Act, but I think there's a lot of excess baggage, to use the minister's own words, in that you have put in to the Act matters that I think don't necessarily have to be there. They were well covered in the common law, and there is a risk involved when you start codifying the common law.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Kamloops has spent 20 years in the practice of law, Mr. Speaker, hoping he could get his sticky little fingers into some of this law. He's just gleefully sitting there in his office with his quill pen, hacking and hewing at the statute law of British Columbia. We support this bill.

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. What can you say after that? Just one quick word to the member for Oak Bay. I did not have anything to do with the drafting of the Trade Practices Art, Mr. Member. That's the other area in which you criticized the government for codifying the common law. However, I do, in all seriousness, undertake to look at that particular area that you mention-ed, but not with a view to an amendment at this time. I don't think it does any harm to leave it on the statute books while we do have a look and see whether it's necessary. If it's unnecessary, I'll seek the counsel of my colleagues about bringing in an amendment in due course to eliminate it. Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 39 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 39, Partnership Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 39; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. STEPHENS: With regard to section 4, Mr. Chairman, there is a reference there to arbitration. Is it intended that that shall be a bypass of access to the courts?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, as I read the Act, Mr. Chairman it is permissive in that it says that a Partner "may refer a difference concerning the interpretation or application of the Partnership Act." I don't think that in any way derogates from his right to go to court.

MR. STEPHENS: As I read it, it is permissive, but if you have a number of partners and one of the partners chooses to do that, are the other partners then obliged to go along with it? In that respect, can one partner take the matter around the court system and into arbitration?

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, I'm tempted to call upon the first member for Vancouver Centre to arbitrate this, Mr. Chairman, since he is certainly the only' one in this House who admits to knowing any law. But I do not think so.

MR. LAUK: I'm a little reticent. If the hon. member for Oak Bay is going to oppose this section because it. may do what he says it might do.... However, it is my submission to the committee that if one partner chooses to go to arbitration, the courts will not hear any application by another partner until the arbitration procedure has expired.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: That would only occur after the arbitration had been completed.

Mr. Chairman, I think the paragraph may go even farther, and that is to frustrate any contract partnership agreement that would attempt to avoid arbitration, except that it does say "may" and not "shall." But I think it is a good section. We should always take every opportunity to stop cluttering up the courts with partnership disputes.

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is there is no provision in the 'rules

[ Page 2563 ]

of the House that private discussions between members of the legal profession be conducted in private and not take up the time of the committee?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is an excellent point of order.

Section 4 approved.

On section 5.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the sections - along with a number of others that I spoke about - that may be just excess, unnecessary. I would ask the, minister, when he is considering this - as he said he is going to later - to consider this with respect to section 5. So I won't have to get up again, this also applies to sections 3 and 6.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I think the concern the member has is over the good faith provisions, as being an embodiment in this statute of the common law. Those are the sections that I do undertake to take a look at.

Section 5 approved.

Sections 6 to 40 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 39, Partnership Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 37.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 37; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LAUK: Could the Attorney-General assure the committee that the repeal of the Absconding Debtors Act will not do injury to the remedy of judgment creditors and that they are protected under the new supreme court rules?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, in response to the hon. member, the Absconding Debtors Act provided a remedy prior to judgment. It has not been used. It is a very cumbersome procedure and, by virtue of the rules of court providing for the service of process and the defendant outside of the province at the present time and the speed in which it is possible Lo tie up the assets of a judgment debtor which this Act would not protect, is not a necessity for its continuance. This is a well-researched matter and it is a recommendation of the Law Reform Commission.

Sections 1 to 14 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 37, Attorney-General Statutes Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 35.

FIRE MARSHAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 35; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LAUK: Forgive me for a moment, Mr. Chairman, while I refer to section 1 as slowly as I can until the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) , who knows something about this bill, rushes back. Now I think that the Attorney-General should be called upon in committee to explain why there is a semi-colon....

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, that's not a semicolon, it's a "!".

MR. LAUK: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, rather than call a recess, I will go through the formality of moving that the committee rise. Mr. Chairman, are you waiting for the first member for Vancouver East?

[ Page 2564 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I'm just at the disposal of the House, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: Well, in that case.... I'm thinking that Mr. Chairman should have a close look at Section 1 because fire marshals are nothing to laugh at. I just think that it's a shocking use of swooping power to repeal the Fire Marshal Act without so much as a how do you do.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The title only is repealed; not the Act.

MR. LAUK: Only the title? Well, you say that now. What happens when we adjourn for the weekend? You will sneak back in here, won't you?

Bill 35 is a very, very important bill number. The last time that number was used on a bill, you might recall, involving the Fire Marshal Act, was in 1896. Or was it 1910?

Interjections.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. KING: If you don't mind, I just wanted some information on what the Attorney-General had in mind for the fire services advisory board. Is it his intention to call upon people qualified in the field, such as retired fire chiefs and that type of thing?

HON. MR. GARDOM: We covered that yesterday and the answer is yes.

MR. KING: Just a kind of a representative commission - is that what the Attorney-General has in mind? I would be concerned if it's just a commission comprised of all public servants without people experienced in the field. That's the point I just wanted to have the Attorney-General comment on.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Certainly not - in response to your question. It's the intention that the board will be established and structured somewhat like the Police Commission but have a larger structure. We wish to have as many people on it as is necessary to adequately fulfill the function of the board: people with experience and knowledge in various aspects of fire-related matters, professionals, builders, insurers, engineers, architects, underwriters, as was mentioned by your colleague for Rossland-Trail (Mr. D'Arcy) yesterday, and product manufacturers.

Sections 4 to 11 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

The house resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

Bill 35, Fire Marshal Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It would be nice if Hansard would record the applause and also the fact that it was nemine contradicente, Mr. Speaker.

Second reading of Bill 24, Mr. Speaker.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. HEWITT: Just a few comments on Bill 24 in introduction. The recent Supreme Court of Canada decision held that the national agency, under the supply management scheme, did not have the authority to collect levies relating to surplus removals on product that was disposed intraprovincially. This bill will allow for the delegation of authority by the provincial commodity board to the federal board, thus resolving the problem which was created by the Supreme Court of Canada decision.

The amendment, Mr. Speaker, will not affect the present day-to-day operations of the provincial marketing board or the national agency or individual producers. The bill also extends the scope of section 12 of the Act to allow for programmes of surplus removal, defining that as well as defining the use of funds collected through levies and fees.

Further, section 5 validates the imposing of fees or collection of levies already made by the federal agency in respect to surplus removal of regulated products which were disposed of within the province. The bill is basically self-explanatory. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would move that the bill now be read a second time.

MRS. WALLACE: I agree with what the minister said. This, in effect, is an after-the-fact piece of legislation that is required to tidy up the discrepancies that have occurred as a result of the federal situation. There is one item that I want to raise that is causing me a little bit of concern, and that is specifically in section 1, where the word "producing"

[ Page 2565 ]

is included in the definition of marketing.

I know that in the rest of the Act this has to be done to incorporate the federal-provincial situation. But when we are dealing with section 1, we are talking about overall definitions that relate not just to those boards which are involved in federal schemes and not just to those boards which are in the production of eggs or meat, where by some stretch of the imagination you could consider that producing was part of the marketing area.

It also relates to boards that are in place to deal with products like potatoes or tree fruits, and it does represent quite a departure from the whole concept of the marketing board, which has historically set sales quotas rather than production quotas. No marketing board can really know what the weather is going to be, whether or not it's going to rain, or the sun is going to shine or there is going to be any disease or pestilence to affect the crop. We have have historically gone on the policy of sales quotas.

While I can agree with the minister that this is a minor housekeeping bill, I think it would be unwise to let the bill pass this House without some comments about that particular factor, which is a major departure from the whole concept of the way the marketing legislation has been established. 1 am wondering whether or not the minister has considered this and why, in fact, he has moved to make it such a broad, all-encompassing change in that one particular area.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. HEWITT: The word "producing" was included basically because of the scheme for egg production in the province. If you recall, quotas were established by dozens of eggs and then were changed to equate to or relate to numbers of birds. As a result, the birds produced the eggs. Therefore, to clarify and to be consistent, the definition had to be expanded to include the word "production" or "producing, " and that's basically it.

As the member knows, the schemes are set out by regulation and would take into consideration those products which have sales quotas. In this particular case, the egg scheme would have a production quota which relates to the number of birds.

I move second reading of Bill 24.

Motion approved.

Bill 24, Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Committee on Bill 13.

RANGE ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On section 9 as amended.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I had just moved the amendment to section 9. Perhaps I should explain what the amendment means. In the bill the way section 9 was drafted previously it appeared that when a licence was to be renewed, invitation would be made to other people to apply for an application when in fact it was a licence being replaced or renewed for an existing licensee.

The intent of the legislation is to encourage good management of the range resource, to provide some security of tenure through longer-term licences and permits, and to give some assurance that they would be renewed subject to good range management. The way the bill was drafted previously, it requested applications upon renewal or replacement by other interested parties. That was not the intention for existing licences. We have amended that so it reads that when a licence is replaced by a new licence, we will advertise the fact that it is replaced. However, on allocations of previously unallocated range or haygrowing permits or licences, we will have to advertise and request new applicants for this. Because it has not previously been allocated, we want everybody who wishes to have a chance at it to have that chance. That is the thrust of the amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: That clears up what my quandary was when this thing adjourned; I was hoping that you would explain just what you were proposing in that. I gather that you are saying that if a range is just up for renewal it is not going to be advertised - that the person who already has it will have the right to renew.

I'm a little concerned about the advertising, and that part hasn't changed in the amendment. You just say "shall publish notice of the application in the prescribed manner." I think the first one said "shall advertise in the prescribed manner." What is the prescribed manner, Mr. Minister? Is there a regulation?

[ Page 2566 ]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The prescribed manner will be defined in the regulations, but normally it means publishing in the Gazette and local newspapers. We want to be sure that people interested are made aware.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm wondering whether or not the minister would be prepared to assure the House that the B.C. Cattlemen's Association will have a copy, and that it will also be advertised in Country Life, the magazine which is the farm voice, as it were, in the province. I certainly think that while advertising in the public press in a prescribed manner is fine, and putting it in the Gazette is fine, we must be very sure that the people who are really involved with this have the opportunity to know. I think that to make it automatic or mandatory that the official organization of the cattlemen would receive a copy of any such advertisement or advice would be a very worthwhile thing to include. I wonder whether I could have the minister's assurance that tie would ensure that that happens as a result of the regulations.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the intention is to advertise in any way that will provide the information to the people concerned. If publications circulated commonly amongst ranchers are in existence, we would certainly make every effort to advertise in them as well. The intention is that anybody who has any interest or potential interest will be aware of what is happening.

MRS. WALLACE: Can you assure the House that B.C. cattlemen will also receive a copy of any such advertisements?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I'm sure the B.C. cattlemen subscribe to the Gazette, and it will certainly be in the Gazette.

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this and the subsequent section - I know I can't talk about that now, but it relates to both of them - are certainly establishing a great deal of routine and a great many permits and applications - a great deal of bureaucracy in fact. I'm wondering whether or not the minister has considered the amount of time that this is going to involve on the part of the people in his ministry who are administering this particular section of this Act, and whether or not he has considered the extra time involved in carrying out the intent of this section.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, with the longer periods of tenure which we will have, these matters will not come up every year. Previously we had permits on a one-year basis and, if this were the case, it would have been a bureaucratic nightmare. However, with the longer periods of tenure, these things will come up every 10 years for licences and every five years, or somewhat less, for permits.

Initially it's going to be a bit of a problem getting it underway, but I think we can handle it. We have requests right now for additions to our range staff and we recognize the fact that we must have more people in the field. As soon as we can accomplish that, I think the work load will be quite handleable by the range division.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I have just one point on section 10 (2) . It says "Where more than one application is made, the regional manager shall make to all applicants one or more proposals respecting the disposition of all applications." Now I presume that that means plans for utilization and proper management of the range.

The Section itself is a bit ambiguous, and it would seem to imply the authority for the manager to differentiate between the proposals that he puts before the different applicants. I would take it as the objective of the section that all applicants should be treated in precisely the same way with respect to any proposals put to them.

The section seems most ambiguous on that point, and seems to provide the authority for the manager to put forward different proposals to different applicants, which would be highly discriminatory. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the section, but that's what it appears to imply to me. Would the minister comment on that?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We're speaking of when more than one application for an area exists. We must keep in mind that we're only speaking of licences. We'll be working within agreed range-management programmes, so we're probably not speaking of one person only, we're speaking of how his licence - especially if he's held it in the past - continues to be integrated within the total range-management programme. People who have licences, providing they have fulfilled their obligations, will be given preference on renewal. We don't want to break up ranch units which depend upon grazing just because someone else happens to be there.

We do wish to continue to work within co-

[ Page 2567 ]

ordinated range-management programmes once they are in place, and this gives the ministry the flexibility to work with the ranchers, with the Cattlemen's Association and local cattlemen's associations to develop the best management for the range area. That's why a proposal may change from one tenure period to another as we adapt to the different demands of both the ranches and other resource requirements.

MR. KING: But the applicants will get the same proposals.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Well, a proposal will be given to the applicants, and it will not necessarily be the same proposal because it has to be commensurate with that person's ranch or deeded land holdings. It may not be exactly the same proposal. We have to adapt the Grown range to the private land holdings, which must be commensurate with the Crown range.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't particularly like what I am hearing. It seems to me that on the basis of proposals put forward by the manager, that could certainly affect who would be the successful applicant. It seems highly unfair to put forward a proposal to one applicant which a second applicant may be completely unaware of and hence have a complete inability to compete with.

I can appreciate that in certain circumstances the purposes for which the graze land is to be put to use can vary, but I think the only way to prevent abuse of this seeming favouritism, whether or not it was intended, would be by a commitment and a mandatory requirement that all applicants have the opportunity to view all the management proposals put forward by the branch.

I would hope that the minister would undertake to do that. Otherwise it opens up all the flexibility in the world to exercising favouritism of one applicant over another, in my view.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'll comment briefly again. If the member will move to section 11, it spells out there the different things which must be considered in making a proposal to a rancher. Every ranch is different and we can't possibly make the same proposal to each ranch. His management capability is different; the cattle he is capable of running are different; many things are different, so you can't make the same proposal. But what we are attempting to do is make a proposal that makes the private ranch land compatible with the grazing offer to each individual.

Generally in a range area what will happen is that there will be several ranchers and a proposal will be made to each of them to enter into a co-ordinated range-use plan, so that each rancher cannot possibly have the same proposal. These proposals, in fact, will be developed in consultation with the ranchers as a group. I'm not going to try and play one rancher against another, but we have to have this flexibility to adapt the range and the different capabilities to the ranch and the ranching capability of the owner of the ranch.

Section 10 approved.

on section 11.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is the Section 1 referred to when I was speaking in second reading about the wording; where it says that the regional manager "shall consider" the various points that are put out. I pointed out at that time that the Grazing Act which this replaces had much stronger wording in this effect. It said: "Priorities shall be given to those persons who own, live and reside in the area."

The minister simply replied at that time by quoting back these same words: "The manager shall consider...." But, Mr. Chairman, considering and giving priority are two different things. I am concerned that this business of priority to local ranchers is apparently being dropped, because, in effect, that's what's happening. "Shall consider" doesn't mean giving priority, no matter how the minister indicates that it is the same. It doesn't mean that they give priority. It leaves the door open for absentee landlords coming in and getting proposals made which we now find out are not going to be the same proposals that might be made to a resident because of different qualities. I was sure the member for Revelstoke-Slocan was misreading section 10 until I heard the minister's response that they were going to be different, that one rancher wasn't going to know what the other one had been offered for the same range, which seems a very strange situation when you're dealing with Crown land - property that belongs to residents of this province.

I am particularly concerned about this section where there is no firm assurance that the criteria of being an owner, being a resident, being in the community, being a contributor to that community, a person who lives there year-round, puts up hay, feeds his cattle through the winter.... While the regional manager will consider all those things, it doesn't say they

[ Page 2568 ]

give any degree of priority. For all I know, the regional manager may consider them a hindrance rather than something that would give priority to the application.

I am extremely concerned about that being dropped from this particular clause and wonder whether or not the minister would consider rewording that clause to include that priority requirement as a mandatory portion of this section.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, no, 1 don't think we want to have as rigid a requirement as that. There are many places where bad management has been exercised by local people, and we're not going to tolerate bad management. Now the member shakes her head, but this is a fact. Likewise, the fact that a person who owns a ranch does not live on a ranch should be no disadvantage to him. We have several ranches in the province - quite a number, as a matter of fact - which have good professional managers doing a good job of using the range, of raising beef and are a real asset to the community. But because the owner doesn't happen to live on the ranch is no reason, really, as far as range management is concerned, to not give him equal opportunity to continue his ranching business, as it has been continued in the past.

So we have to have a flexibility both to assure the continuation of good range management, even though the owner may not live on the ranch, and also to not give preferential treatment to bad managers, because they happen to live there. It's just a matter of developing good range management for the interest of the range resource.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, what bothers me about this .... I'm going to try and come at it from another direction, so maybe the minister can understand more clearly what my colleague and I have expressed concern about. The proposition that a management plan be put forward by the manager to an applicant because the ranching operation of that particular applicant would preclude the kind of management plan put forward to another applicant is an assumption made by the manager, under this statute.

Our proposition, I think, is that all applicants should be made aware of any variation of management proposals offered by the manager because, rather than the branch making the assumption as to who can conform, I think it should be up to the individual rancher to say: "Well, perhaps I have a component of my enterprise which the branch was not aware of, and therefore I would like to have had a shot at this alternative management plan." Unless all of the applicants are made aware of the variation in plans put forward by the branch, they are precluded from so doing on the assumption of the minister's bureaucrats, and that is wrong and it lends itself to favouritism. I don't think the minister intends to do that, and I don't think he should seek to do that. Therefore I think he should have another look at this section.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we're making one or more proposals. It's not a matter of bureaucrats sitting down and dreaming up a proposal and saying to a rancher, "Here, this is what you must do." A proposal is developed co-operatively between the range management people and the Ministry of Forests and the ranching community. A proposal, as it is developed, will be a management proposal developed jointly by the range division and a group of ranchers working in an integrated range-use plan.

So it's not a simple matter of somebody spelling out what it must be, but the changing range condition, and the changing ranch ownership patterns. Ranches can be split up or combined, or whatever. The programmes will be developed jointly by the ranching community and the range division; they'll have a joint management responsibility. That is why we're maintaining this flexibility, so that we can do that type of thing.

Section 11 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Members of the committee, I'd like to bring your attention, if I could, back to section 9. There was an amendment moved yesterday and it was the Chair's error in not bringing this forward at the initial proceedings.

Amendment approved.

Section 9 as amended, approved.

Section 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. KING: This is the one where the minister has the option of hearing objections to a proposal. There is nothing very mandatory in this particular section. The regional manager notifies the minister and the minister then has an obligation simply to provide a hearing. That bothers me because it doesn't spell out the type of hearing that will be granted, whether it is in the privacy of the minister's office.

[ Page 2569 ]

I don't think that is a very healthy way to hear formal objections to a government transaction respecting the disposition of Grown land. I think the whole appeal procedure should be much more open and above board than that. I appreciate that ultimately there is an opportunity to go to an appeal as laid out under the Forest Act, but I don't like this idea of the rather cursory way the hearing provision is provided for in this particular Act. I wonder what the minister has in mind. What kind of a hearing does he plan?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The first hearing would be to the regional manager. If somebody objects to a proposal made, he or she should go to the person who made it, and perhaps at that level it can be straightened out just through a discussion; if he is not satisfied there, he can appeal to the minister and it will be heard by the minister. Or the minister can say that, really, this is the type of thing that should be judged by people knowledgeable in that particular area. So we could set up an appeal board to hear this person's objection. It's just a matter of providing an objector to a proposed licence with the opportunity to be heard wherever he should, be heard.

We intentionally kept it flexible so that it may just be a matter of him sitting down with a range manager of a region, and they could say, "Well, okay, we will adapt to your wishes, " or "These are the reasons for mine." We don't want to make it a rigid type of thing; again, it's just a co-operative range management programme. If it comes to a point where a hard and fast decision made by the forestry official is objected to, then it can go to an appeal board and, in effect, his peers can hear him and judge it.

MR. KING: Can the minister tell me something about the appeal board? How is it going to be structured? Apparently it is contained in an Act that has not yet come before the Legislature. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, you would find me completely out of order if I made any reference to a statute other than the one we are scrutinizing at the moment. That being the case, I would appreciate it if the minister would outline for the House precisely what this appeal tribunal is, how it is structured and precisely how it will function in terms of providing for a fair and judicious appeal system to any applicants who feel aggrieved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The member is right; it is spelled out in the Forest Act. But the intention is that if, for example, we have a three-person appeal board, it will be much like a labour appeal board where each party would select a person and they would select someone satisfactory to both of them. The intent is so that each party will be represented by people who are knowledgeable in the matters being appealed; ranchers would be the best people to have involved in a ranching appeal. Perhaps we should have somebody sitting on the appeal board who has local knowledge and other people who are not prejudiced by local knowledge. It's an ad hoc type of thing and will be adapted to suit the circumstances of the matter being appealed.

MR. KING: That's fine. I understand, then, that the applicant who desired the appeal would make a nomination and, presumably, the regional manager would nominate a representative for the appeal tribunal, and those two nominees would then attempt to agree upon an impartial chairman.

What does the minister contemplate in terms of the cost of such a tribunal and its deliberations? Would the individual nominees be responsible for the payment of costs of their representative on the tribunal, or will they be responsible for the entire costs including that of the independent chairman? Or, conversely, will the ministry provide the funds to pay this kind of an appeal agency? I'd be very interested to find out because, obviously, if it is to be an effective appeal mechanism and it imposes onerous burdens of cost on the applicants, that would preclude any real system of meaningful appeal, in my view. So I'd be very interested in having a further explanation of this procedure.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Forest Act states that the appeal board can determine how the costs will be shared or who will pay them. We like to discourage nuisance appeals. If someone constantly appeals everything, and it's running into a great cost and inconvenience to people, perhaps the appeal board will make him pay a share of the cost. The appeal board could say that the government will pay the cost, or the costs will be shared jointly between the government and the appellant. So it's quite flexible. The intent is not to discourage people from appealing by having an onerous cost on them.

What it will cost is, of course, impossible to say at this time. An appeal may take place in a two-hour period on an afternoon, and be of very little cost to anyone, or it may be an appeal that takes place over a number of months and is quite a costly thing. But the appeal board itself will determine who pays

[ Page 2570 ]

the cost of the thing.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this is the most curious approach I've heard of. I've had a great deal to do with appeal boards of various kinds over the years - the industrial relations sector and the human resources sector, a whole variety of areas - but I have never yet heard of an appeal system where the appeal agency itself has the right and the option of imposing the costs of their function and their salary either upon the Crown or upon one or more of the parties to the appeal.

In other appeal procedures, the mechanism and the responsibility for recompense is clearly outlined. In the Labour Code of British Columbia, under some circumstances, single arbitrator costs are shared between applicants before they appeal and the Crown. But in most cases, for arbitration proceedings - in that area and others - the parties are each responsible for their own nominee, and the Crown pays the chairman, or the Crown assumes the full responsibility. I can appreciate that there will be problems at times with frivolous appeals. But there are other ways of filtering out what would be frivolous appeals, and ensuring that there are not nuisance appeals that subject the Grown to unnecessary expenditures. That's not a difficult thing to do. I think the minister could look to other statutes for guidance in that respect.

This seems like an extremely loose arrangement to. me, Mr. Chairman, and, quite frankly, I would worry about -something so wide open. The minister has pointed out that appeals can run for a considerable length of time. They can also involve a considerable amount of travel, as in an appeal that might take place in Fort St. John, and a nominee to the appeal agency be made from Cranbrook or some other area of the province. There is the difficulty of getting together for mutually acceptable hearing dates, and the travel costs involved can run into significant amounts of money. There is nothing unusual these days about a $10,000 bill for arbitration and appeal hearings.

I don't think the minister should treat this in a very light way. I think that he should have spelled out more clearly precisely who is responsible, and where those costs will be borne.

MRS. WALLACE: It is very interesting that the minister has indicated that this particular clause is supposed to encompass a formal appeal board. I wonder if the minister would tell the house whether it encompasses the question as to whether the decision of such an appeal board is binding. Clause (a) says that, after he hears all this, the minister "in his discretion" is going to make the decision. Is the decision of the appeal board, that the minister tells us is encompassed in this section 13, going to be binding? Or is it just going to be so much window dressing, with the minister making the decision at his discretion?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: As per the amendment to the Forest Act standing on the order paper now, the appeal is binding except that each party has recourse to the courts on points of law or jurisdiction. If the terms of reference of an appeal board are exceeded, each member can appeal to the courts on that matter, or on a point of law. Otherwise, the appeal is binding.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 15 standing on the order paper. (See appendix.) This amendment is simply for consistency within the Act and clarification. There is no change in the meaning.

Amendment approved.

Section 15 as amended approved.

On section 16.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I move the amendment to section 16 standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.) This amendment is in order to remove some doubt that was expressed by people in the ranching community. The way section 16 is written, all it does is attempt to clarify the fact that no rights under licence extend beyond the expiry of that licence. The ranching community said: "Well, this type of provision is not in the Forest Act. We are therefore being treated as second-class citizens."

Although it says in the licence itself that any privileges or rights granted under the licence expire at the end of the licence, we're saying in section 16 now that if, in fact, the rancher should forget to apply for renewal prior to the expiry of his licence as it's spelled out in the Act, then he still has the right to apply for a new licence. So the door is not closed to him if through some oversight he does not apply in the time pre-

[ Page 2571 ]

scribed in the Act.

MRS. WALLACE: Certainly the amendment is an improvement over the original. When the minister talks about being spelled out in the Act where a rancher can apply before his permit expires, I'm sorry but I have missed this section. Is this in the Range Act or is this in the Forest Act?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's in section 15, Mr. Chairman, which we've already passed. That section says that during the second-to-last year, a person can apply for a new licence and enter into negotiations with the regional manager for a new licence, which is granted and takes effect at the expiry of the existing licence. I

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Sections 17 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, this particular section relates to the right of the regional manager to suspend in whole or part the rights that have been granted under a licence or permit for a variety of reasons, and provides for a period of 14 days' notice to the licencee, during which compliance must be made or a remedy found, or there is provision for the suspension of rights granted under the licence or permit.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I don't find any provision for appeal in this particular section. It seems to me that there could be scope there for wide disagreement as to whether or not compliance had been made or not. To grant this kind of authority for cancellation of a licence or permit without a more reasonable basis of appeal than simply a hearing by the regional manager is to me a rather dangerous thing. If I'm missing something in this section, I wish the minister would comment. But that kind of arbitrary right is a bit dangerous, in my view.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, section 37 spells out what decisions can be appealed, and decisions made under section 27 are appealable.

MR. KING: The minister said section 37. Is he suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that that amends section 27? This Section 1n itself is very explicit. The only right I see here is the right to request a hearing by the regional manager. I see no guarantee of any appeal mechanism. If there is something tagged on, that would be an interesting way of doing things. If that would supersede section 27 or modify it in some way - I'm not a lawyer, I'm not certain - that's a rather peculiar way to go. When rights are granted in a section of a statute, they are normally modified, in my understanding, by appeal mechanisms or reference to another section contained in that Section itself. In the absence to any such reference in section 27, 1 question whether or not another section of this bill applies. I'd appreciate the minister's response.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member is not a lawyer, nor am 1. The lawyers do advise that this is quite in order. The appeal section, section 37, does state under which sections in the Act decisions or determinations or orders are appealable. It's spelled out very clearly that section 27 is appealable.

Sections 27 to 36 approved.

On section 37.

MR. KING: Section 37 gets very vague in terms of what precise kinds of appeal are available. Again, it's under the Forest Act. We don't have the advantage of having dealt with the Forest Act as yet, therefore I am not conversant with the appeal mechanism set up under a statute without stature. How's that? It hasn't been passed by this Legislative Assembly, or dealt with by it. So, again, am I to understand that, under this appeal section as it applies to sections 27, 28, 30 and 31, the appeal tribunal is as the minister outlined previously, with nominees from the various parties, an impartial chairman, and an optional right of imposing the costs of these agencies on the Crown, or on the appellant?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The appeal, as spelled out in the previous section, is the same type of appeal procedure as here. I point out to the member that the courts of British Columbia have the right to say who pays the costs of actions, and the same thing would be held by the appeal boards here. It's not uncommon at all, and I know there are various other ways of doing it - the member mentioned several. We are maintaining the flexibility so that we can adopt the best type of appeal procedure and payment procedure to suit the circumstances.

MR. KING: I'm rather surprised that the

[ Page 2572 ]

minister would equate some administrative, quasi-judicial agency with the courts of the province, and gain the nodded approval of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , in terms of suggesting that an agency such as that should have the power to set costs equivalent to the courts of this province. That, Mr. Chairman, is a procedure 1 have never heard of in this province with respect to any other statute.

No other statute carries with it that kind of authority. Not even the Labour Relations Board has authority to set costs, and that's one of the most high-powered administrative, quasi-judicial agencies in the province. At least that's what the Liberals used to tell me when they were Liberals on this side of the House, and I was introducing that statute.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You're out of bounds.

MR. KING: No, you're out of bounds; you're on the other side.

The thing that bothered me a bit about this is that - and I stated my objections before, but so be it - we have no less than four sections of this Act - 27, 28, 30 and 31 - under which appeals may be made. We are getting into areas where the probability of appeals is in-creasing. Obviously you're going to receive quite a number of appeals under these four sections over the long haul, with the changeover to the new system. There is going to be an increased interest in acquiring grazing land, because of the longer tenure granted under this particular statute. There is going to be a lot of activity, and of course, every applicant cannot have a piece of the action; they're not all going to get their way. So you'll be subjected, I suggest, to a much higher frequency of appeal procedures.

I quite frankly think this is just a terrible approach; it's very vague. It's not really very good business to come in here with this kind of statute, which is new, and reference the appeal mechanism to some statute to be dealt with down the road, which the House has no knowledge of. That, in itself, is poor administration and poor business. It would never have been accepted by the Attorney-General when he sat in opposition as a Liberal, because he was a real stickler for , proper procedure in terms of these legalistic things. However, I suppose, if you are really hidebound in this way, we have to accept it.

But I reiterate that it is poor business. It is going to create problems. It is going to impose an uncontrollable cost upon the Grown, because some bureaucratic, administrative, quasi-judicial agency is going to have the power to impose presumably unbudgeted costs upon the government, that could run into tens of thousands of dollars. I'm going to ask the minister, before this Act passes, whether or not he intends to provide a budgetary allocation to cover such appeal agencies; and whether or not, indeed, such an allocation has been made for the reminder of the calendar year 1978-79.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, if we can get an idea of what the cost will be, we will certainly budget for it. The funds required for the administration of this Act will be, under section 49, appropriated for this Act until a budget is presented for this Act next year.

Section 37 approved.

Sections 38 to 44 inclusive approved.

on section 45.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, this is an interesting section dealing with horses on the range. The minister is really going to be tough on any horses that are on the range. But it is strange, Mr. Chairman, that in any of my travels among the ranching people I haven't heard very many complaints about horses on the range. The complaint I hear all the time is about all-terrain vehicles. I am wondering why the minister is going to be so tough on horses and hasn't even mentioned any control of allterrain vehicles on rangeland.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to shoot all-terrain vehicles.

MRS. WALLACE: But you are going to shoot horses.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: However, the control of horses at large is a humanitarian thing, really. I don't know if any of the members have seen some of the photographs, as we have, of poor, starving animals. It's not doing them a service to allow them to exist that way. People who have horses should look after them. If they don't, we're not going to willy-nilly go out and destroy the horses, but we do feel that they should be cared for. There are a number of wild horses still in the Chilcotin, and they are actually quite detrimental to the range resource.

This section has been in existence in other legislation for a long time, and we feel it is necessary to continue it.

[ Page 2573 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I am using it as a means of raising the other point, because I think the minister is very aware of the damage that all-terrain vehicles do to rangeland. I'm wondering why he hasn't made any mention of how he is proposing to protect the rangeland from the all-terrain vehicles.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With all due respect, Madam Member, that is not the subject of this particular section.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, it's something that is missing from this part where lie is dealing with other things on the range.

Section 45 approved.

Sections 46 and 47 approved.

on section 48.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, again, the provision of regulations here is going to be quite profound, in terms of giving full force and effect to this statute. I'd like to ask the minister to discuss briefly just how he intends to develop these regulations and what kind of time frame he anticipates we are looking at before those regulations are promulgated. Most importantly, does the minister intend to provide an opportunity for the areas affected by this statute to give him their ideas and suggestions with respect to the regulations? Regulations are very important in terms of giving that effect, and it is very difficult, I suggest, for the minister and his staff to fully anticipate all of the practical problem that flow from the introduction of this kind of statute in the field.

I think it is good business to provide an opportunity for those people regulated by this statute to have some discussion on those regulations, and to have some idea of what the time frame is for their introduction and promulgation.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I agree completely with the member for Revelstoke Slocan. We fully intend to develop regulations in consultation and co-operation with the ranching community. 1 can't be specific on how soon they will be in place. It will take some time, perhaps, but, as you know, this is a proclamation bill and they will be prepared by the time the bill is proclaimed.

Section 48 approved.

Sections 49 to 54 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 13, Range Act, reported complete with amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 13, Range Act, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 25.

MINERAL ACT

CLARIFICATION ACT

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, this bill confirms that a rental fee was payable on mineral claims from January 1,1974. This rental fee was introduced by the former government and the rental fee has since been abolished by this government in the Mineral Act. We have a new Mineral Act which was introduced in the Legislature during the last session, and what we're doing, in effect, is clarifying an Act that is no longer in existence.

This clarification Act is required due to uncertainties in the interpretation of section 51 of the Mineral Act, which was repealed on January 1,1978. Security of title is important to the mining industry and to prospectors of this province, and this amendment has the effect of strengthening security of title and eliminating the uncertainties. I move that the bill be read a second time now.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, this is called the Mineral Act Clarification Act and it's not

[ Page 2574 ]

very clear to me, I can tell the minister, except for one thing - it's retroactive legislation. I say that's wrong and I call on all the members on that side of the House who, when they were in opposition, used to say that retroactive legislation was wrong, to oppose this bill. It was wrong then and it's wrong now, and I oppose it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) . I was hesitant to introduce this clarification Act, but in the interests of the mining industry and the prospectors of this province, I found it necessary to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved. ,

Bill 25, Mineral Act Clarification Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 23.

SCIENCE COUNCIL OF

BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT

The House in committee on Bill 23; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed: Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Bill 23, Science Council of British Columbia Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 27.

COAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

The House in committee on Bill 27; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the suspension of a free miner's certificate is a very :serious thing, and I notice that under the new section - the existing section 5 is repealed - the right to apply for another certificate is also cancelled, as was the initial certificate, and as it was in the existing section 5.

I wonder if the minister could justify that need to cancel out the right to apply for a new certificate. I appreciate the need from time to time to suspend or to lift an existing certificate, but why should the right to apply for a new certificate not be there?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, sections 3 and 4 allow the right of cancellation for cause. That doesn't necessarily mean that the free miner cannot reapply for a certificate. We haven't denied him the right to apply for another. He would be subject to the Mineral Act in getting his free miner's certificate back. Section 61 of the Mineral Act would come into play in the reinstatement of his certificate.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, while section 61 of the Mineral Act might cane into play, the minister has the right here to suspend not only the certificate but "the right to apply for another." I don't quite understand how section 61 of the Mineral Act will overcome the loss of that right to apply for another.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The minister would have the authority to lift the suspension, and then he would have the right to reapply. It would have to be for cause that the certificate would be suspended.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment on section 7, which I have placed on the table and made available to members of the opposition.

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 8.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the explanatory note for section 8 states that the right of the government to make loans and receive equity in coal properties is repealed. In other words, the existing section 10 is repealed, which says: "The Lieutenant-Governor-

[ Page 2575 ]

in-Council, if it considers it to be in public interest, may authorize and direct the Minister of Finance to make a loan to a licensee or lessee; or the minister on behalf of the Grown to acquire an interest or equity in the property operations of a licensee or lessee; and may authorize the minister on behalf of the Crown to enter into an agreement...." Could the minister tell us a little bit about the philosophy behind removing this particular power from the Act?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. It's not government policy to get involved in taking an equity position in coal mining in British Columbia, because it's contrary to our political philosophy. Maybe the former government had an interest in acquiring an equity position, or making loans in the development of the resource, or taking an option on coal reserves in this province, but that's not the position of this government.

MR. GIBSON: Is the minister telling us that, should the time come in this province when the advancement of some extremely significant coal deposits - such as in the northeast lands -might be held up or might require that the government come in and help and take an equity position, that would not on any account be considered?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That is correct. I would hope that if there were investment opportunities in coal, the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation might play a part, but not the government of British Columbia. We're not interested in buying into the coal reserves of British Columbia or gambling with the taxpayers' money, as we've seen happen here in the province before, with tremendous losses incurred.

MR. GIBSON: I am interested in what the minister is saying. When he is talking about gambling with money, I take it he's talking about equity. The section that we're cancelling out also eliminates the power to lend money to new developments. Is the minister telling us that under no circumstances will the government be lending money with respect to new developments in this province? In other words, they are going to have to stand on their own feet. Is that what the minister is telling us?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, if there is any money loaned for coal development in this province, it will not be under this statute.

MR. GIBSON: That's not quite what I asked. I asked the minister, since he is repealing this section which is the only statute that I know of that gives any power....

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's redundant and repetitive.

MR. GIBSON: It can't be redundant and repetitive if it's the only place it appears. The minister is redundant and repetitive sometimes. I just want a statement from the minister. Does the repeal of this power mean that the government is going to require that all coal development in this province stand on its own economic feet?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this section has been repealed for political purposes. In fact it is quite silly of the minister to stand up and say that in no circumstances will the government of British Columbia on behalf of the people make a loan to a company that wants to extract coal, if it's in the best interests of the province to make that loan to the company. It would seem to me that there is every indication that this should be left intact, and that it is up to the discretion of the government whether they want to make a particular loan or not. But to leave the power there is a far different matter. It's also the same with taking equity.

As a matter of fact, it's not too long ago that the president of one of the world's biggest mining companies, Rio Tinto Zinc, speaking at the St. Francis Hotel in San Francisco, said that there's a new and changing world out there and that all companies, including his, had better be prepared morally to let the people of the country in which any company is extracting mineral resources to invest in that. He said if companies prefer to invest in that equity through their government on the people's behalf, he could see through his company that that's the way it's going to be a great amount of time from now on. He sees absolutely nothing wrong with that.

But it's silly to repeal this section, because it does leave the government an option they may wish to exercise on behalf of the people of the province. They don't have to use it. They can say, "No, we're not going to lend you any money, " or, "No, we're not going to invest and take an equity in." But to take it out is silly, and to cut off that option.... The government can keep its political philosophy and not do a darn thing. But at least they've got the option if it ever arises that it would be for the good of the people to do it. It's a silly political trick to take it

[ Page 2576 ]

out, because the minister knows and the government knows that in a changing world now there is a time when government should take an equity position in the resources under its jurisdiction or make a loan to a company to extract it.

So we're opposed to this deletion, Mr. Chairman.

Section 8 approved on the following division:

YEAS - 26

NAYS - 12

Section 9 approved.

On section 10.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister would explain this section. The new language and the old language are very, very similar. What's the actual impact of the changes? This is section 10 amending section 12.

HON. MR. CHABOT: What we have, in effect, done is removed "on his location." In other words, it has been deleted in order to facilitate the minister obtaining technical data from areas other than the immediate location. What I am suggesting is that there is a need for getting a little more data from freehold land, and this amendment facilitates our ability to get data.

Section 10 approved.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

MR. GIBSON: Now this is the one that converts from acreage to metric and, in effect, doubles the rental per acre or per hectare. Is that the effect, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's right. It's conversion from acreage. Yesterday or the day before, when I was discussing the principle of the bill, I did it all in acres because the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) had some difficulty in understanding the conversion table.

What we are in effect doing is moving from $1 per acre to $5 per hectare, which means the equivalent of $2 per acre.

MR. GIBSON: I would like to ask the minister, since he is in effect doubling the rental, why he didn't....

HON. MR. CHABOT: The answer is yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And the question was?

MR. GIBSON: Would you give me notice of the question? I want to ask the minister, since he is, in fact, doubling the rental, why he didn't put this extra $1 per acre on the work requirements instead of on the rental requirement in order that that extra $1 per acre could have gone into the ground, could have gone into exploration for more data for the people of British Columbia in understanding and developing their coal resource. Why did he put this money on top of the ground, rather than more usefully in the ground?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, we have altered very substantially the work requirements in this Act. If you read a little later on, you will see we have increased the work requirements. The work, the drilling, the testing and the identifying of coal are there. We have increased the work requirements up to 400 per cent. Isn't that enough? Is the member for North Vancouver-Capilano suggesting that we should increase the work requirements beyond $20 per acre?

MR. GIBSON: What the member for North Vancouver-Capilano is suggesting is that you should reduce the rental requirement and increase the work requirement - leave the amount of money the same, but get more data for the people of British Columbia.

The minister, if he wants to speak about the work requirements, should see the explanatory note on section 16, which says: "First year unchanged at $3 per acre."

[ Page 2577 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's the wrong section.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Minister, you're talking about $20 per acre. I just wanted to indicate that you hadn't read the entirety of section 16. So I'm just saying that money should go into the ground, rather than into the minister's coffers.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the value of land has increased very substantially since the rental fee was $1 per acre. Now it is $5 per hectare, and that reflects the increased value of land.

Section 13 approved.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

MR. GIBSON: 1 think that the members of this House should note that the first year work requirements on various coal properties in the province are unchanged at $3 per acre. The second year is increased from $4 to $5 per acre, which is no big deal. The third year is unchanged at $5 per acre. The fourth and fifth years are very considerably increased. The fourth year is increased to $10 per acre from $5, and the sixth and subsequent years are increased to $20 per acre from $5. The fourth-, fifth- and subsequent-year increases are very welcome, to the extent that they ever come in to force - if there is not a holding lease issued by the minister under a section we will get to later on in this bill.

What I want to know, Mr. Chairman, is, since the value of land has gone up and since we all know that inflation has gone up - as the minister justified the increase in the rental in the last section - why haven't work requirements gone up in the first year at all? Why haven't they gone up more in the second year? And why haven't they gone up in the third year, when the work requirement is again unchanged?

It seems to me that the work requirements should be more substantial than they are here, particularly when you consider the extra ordinary cash flow of some of the very large corporations that are currently applying for the licences that are working through the pipeline towards the minister's desk.

AN HON. MEMBER: They haven't arrived there yet.

MR. GIBSON: It seem to me that the more work requirement there is for the issuance of these licences, the more quickly we are going Lo find out about this British Columbia resource, and also the more exploration employment we're going to generate in this province. So I ask the minister why these work requirements aren't higher.

HON. MR. CHABOT: This reflects the kind of experience we have had in British Columbia on expenditures on work requirements. These are fairly accurate assessments of work requirements to develop the coal resource to a viable coal operation. These are current costs in developing the resource. I might say that in the first year there has been no increase, primarily because that's the year in which equipment and supplies are being moved onto the site. It is not always possible to fulfill this kind of a requirement of $3 per acre.

You've indicated an interest in seeing that the coal resource be identified as quickly as possible. I assure you that with the kind of work requirements identified here in this Act, in the fifth and sixth years you will see that the work will be generated quite rapidly in the earlier years.

The amendments here are realistic as far as today's costs are concerned. I will take into consideration for future years the recommendation of the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) to the effect that he suggests that the work requirements in this Act are not sufficient.

MR. LEA: Even though it's of course welcome that there should be more work done on these properties, in fact, all this section does is it just costs them a little more money to get a licence for 21 years. The fact still remains that those licences shouldn't be issued anyway, regardless of the increases that they put in here. But for those areas that are already under licence, those are welcome changes.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I presume the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) is talking about leases, really, because licences are on year-to-year renewable....

MR. LEA: No, they're not.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, they are. In the sixth year they pay $20 per acre in work requirement. If they don't perform the work, they pay cash in lieu. So at $20 per acre, plus the rental of $2, that's $22 per acre. The government would be glad if....

MR. LEA: They aren't renewable every year.

[ Page 2578 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT; Yes, they are. Licences are.

MR. LEA: All they've got to do is do the work.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, they have to submit an application and a plan of operation each and every year.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, let me ask the minister: under the amended Act, is the ability to pay cash in lieu continued without limit?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, it is.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I want to express a concern about that because the purpose of these work requirements is to get work done. It should not be continued without limit. I can understand one year and possibly even two years because of particular technical difficulties such as weather conditions or anything that might arise. But the purpose of these work requirements is to get work done, and the cash in lieu should not continue without limit.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Just in quick response to that, experience has shown we get very little cash in lieu.

Sections 16 to 18 approved.

On section 19.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On section 19, Mr. Chairman, there is an amendment which I've placed on the table and have made available to members of the opposition. I move the amendment.

Amendment approved.

On section 19 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, on this section as amended, section 26, of course, is a very important section because it deals with the application for the lease. I don't have all the amendments consolidated in front of me and that's why I have to ask the minister this question. It currently states at the end of section 3 that subject to this and that - the safe and efficient exploration and the optimum recovery of coal and minimal environmental impact - "the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, upon the recommendation of the minister, shall issue a lease." Now I understand that the "shall" condition is still in there, as it should be. Do I understand correctly that the Lieutenant-Governor-in--Council is now removed and it becomes the minister alone?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, that's correct.

MR. GIBSON: So from this point on, the answer that the minister is giving me and has been giving me earlier with respect to the issuance of the coal licences - namely, that the Lieutenant--Governor-in-Council might not agree - that excuse is now removed. I just want to be clear about that.

Section 19 as amended approved.

On section 20.

MR. LEA: You know, Mr. Chairman, this is the big laugh of the year, this one. All the time that that minister was in opposition, the one thing he yelled and screamed about was ministerial discretion. All things that involved ministerial discretion should be taken out of the Acts for ever and ever, Amen. And the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) applauds. But now we find, Mr. Member for Omineca, that more and more ministerial discretion is going into the Act, away from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, away from the Legislature and more and more to the minister.

I just thought it would be worth mentioning that this is hypocrisy. It's been hypocrisy from the time that that minister was in opposition to the time he's in government. I'd like to hear him get up.

As a matter of fact, what I should have brought in was one of the minister's old speeches when tie was on the other side of this House, just to show you, Mr. Speaker, how it works; how you say one thing on this side of the House, if you're in Social Credit, and how you say something else on the other side of the House when you're in government, if you're in Social Credit. Donot raise the taxes - they raised the taxes; no ministerial discretion -more ministerial discretion. The hypocrisy should be pointed out.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, I just can't allow that to go by without commenting.

MR. LEA: It's true.

HON. MR. CHABOT: When I was in the opposition, I talked about the discretionary powers of that former government. Almost every bill had discretion, wide-ranging awesome powers.

MR. GIBSON: Sweeping!

[ Page 2579 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: "Awesome" - I used to use that word all the time. They're not contained in this Act. Really, this Act says "shall, " not "may." Your Act, the Acts that were introduced in the old days, in those old, terrible socialist days we had in this province, had the condition of "may, " and this one says "shall." What we're trying to do is eliminate the kind of red tape and the necessity of going through the cabinet when it's already "shall."

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, what the minister is really saying is that now that they're in government, it's quite all right. You know, they're not looking at legislation so much as who is in government. Now that they're in government, they don't mind the government having those powers. They just didn't want the government to have them when they weren't in government, and that's the size of it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I want to clearly identify that the superpowers that were introduced in legislation between 1972 and 1975 were absolute discretion. They said "May"; this Act says "shall." All we're trying to do is cut out the red tape.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I think its a very good thing to have lots of "shalls" in an Act like this and remove the minister's discretion. That's good, but this holding-lease section....

HON. MR. CHABOT: We're not there yet, are we?

MR. GIBSON: What are we on? We're on section 21, aren't we?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, section 20.

MR. GIBSON: Oh, I'm sorry.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment which has been placed on the table and made so courteously available to the members of the opposition.

Amendment approved.

On section 21 as amended.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this holding lease Section 1s a great example of ministerial dis-

cretion. You should understand what can happen under this section. A licence holder may do work for the first year, which is relatively cheap at $3 an acre. He may do work for the second year at $5 per acre and may do work for the third year at $5 per acre. Under section 26 they can then come to the minister and satisfy him that they have achieved sufficient data to have their economics down right. I question if they could with those few dollars, but they could at the end of those three years, having spent more dollars, come along and say: "Mr. Minister, now that we have the data we need, we want a production lease. However, we say to you that the time is not economically right for production, and therefore we want a holding lease." The minister may under this section - it's not "shall" here, it's "May, " if I understand it correctly....

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's "shall."

MR. GIBSON: Oh, I'm sorry. "The minister shall, subject to the regulations, issue" a holding lease.

First of all, what I want to know from the minister is what the precise rental is. I understand him to have said in second reading it is $4 per acre per year, I think, but I'd like to clarify that since that is considerably less than what the work requirement would be in those years. Secondly, under what criteria is he going to determine the economics of developing that particular deposit at the time? As the minister knows, mining companies may make different judgments as to what is economic in one place or another. In hardrock mining in this province, it happens very often that a particular company will say: "That's a development that we really don't feel we want to go ahead with right now." But then another company will come along and say: "Let us buy those claims from you. We will go ahead." There is always that protection in hardrock mining.

Will the minister have any safety valve of that kind? In other words, if one firm or would-be leaseholder says "I can't develop that property, " will there be any opportunity after some period of time for others to say: "Well, now, if you won't go ahead, we will."? How will that work?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Say that again.

MR. GIBSON: I've drawn this scenario for you, Mr. Minister. The licence holder has done his work, he has presented for you an application under section 26 and he has said: "We

[ Page 2580 ]

would like to go ahead with the production, but we really can't see it in today's economic climate. In terms of the resource in the ground, we would like a holding lease." In making the judgment as to whether the minister should give that company a holding lease or not, what kind of soundings are you going to make as to whether someone else might not, in fact, ask for a holding lease, but be prepared to go into production on those particular lands? Perhaps he might not do that right away. But is there some way you could test the market on that two or three years hence? In other words, how long are you going to allow lands to be held in a deep freeze under this holding lease without meeting the test of the marketplace? That's the essence of the question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, there would have to be some evidence submitted to my office to indicate that there are no markets before a holding lease would be issued. The holding lease, in its initial issuance, has a maximum five-year term. On the renewal of the holding lease, it is up to a maximum of five years - and that is discretionary.

In the event that some difficulties are encountered with the holding lease, the company holding the coal property has the option of going back to a licence and starting back where it left off, in either paying or doing additional work. In the event he has proven up the resource - he has defined the resource -then, I presume, it would be useless to do more work. If that is the case, when it has gone back to the licence stage, then it would be necessary to pay cash in lieu.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano suggests that if somebody else gives an indication to me that he is able to produce from that property, that he has identified a market, and that is the case, it would be difficult to issue a holding lease - on the basis that there were markets available for that coal.

So I suggest that if there is a clearly identified market and if there is evidence that there has not been sufficient examination or work on establishing markets, then I suggest that holding leases would be difficult to secure.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the minister didn't answer my question about the rental fee. Am I correct in that it is $4 per acre?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The holding lease fee is $4 per acre.

MR. GIBSON: Given that $4 per acre per year, which, of course, is much less than the work requirements in the fourth and fifth and subsequent years, it is possible that a licence holder, wishing to maintain his licence but to spend less on the property than the steeply escalating work requirements after that time, might come to the minister and say, "We've now done our work for the first three years. We would like to now enter into a holding lease rather than continue to do work, " which is left unsaid because the work is so much more expensive than simply the holding lease. The holding lease, of course, gives more revenue to the Crown but doesn't get the work done on the ground.

How will the minister guard the public against that possibility?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the regulations clearly define what kind of work will be expected of those people who are holding licences in the province. We will have to have clear evidence that the resource has been clearly identified. The regulations clearly spell out whether or not they will be in a position to apply for a holding lease. If it is deemed that they haven't done sufficient work, then the holding lease will be rejected and they will continue with the licence until we're satisfied that the resource has been properly identified.

MR. GIBSON: Just one other question under this section. Does the evidence that is presented by the companies to the minister in support of that kind of an application become public knowledge, and at what time? In other words, is there any way of public review of the minister's exercise of this discretion? I can understand that there will be elements of commercial confidentiality here, but can the minister tell us what provision there will be for some kind of public review as to whether or not the minister of the day has properly exercised discretion in this regard?

HON. MR. CHABOT: At any time, this Legislature has the right to question the minister regarding the issuance of holding leases for coal and the justification for doing so. I think that fulfils the public role.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, this Section 1s a pure sham because, as I understand it, a company gets a licence, they do the required amount of work. Then, if they can prove there is no market, they can go into a holding action at the minister's say so. They have to prove they have done the work. Then, if they can prove there is no market, they can apply

[ Page 2581 ]

for.... I see no reason, if they've done those things, why they shouldn't get their holding licence.

Mr. Chairman, all you have to do is take a look at the projections for markets over the next few years, and you see that there is going to be every reason to believe that almost every company applying for a licence is going to be able to apply for a holding lease, because there is no market. All this is is a way of allowing the companies off the hook. It allows them to take up the licence, to do the required amount of work, and then prove there is no market. If they prove there is no market, they go to the cheaper system of a holding licence.

As we all know, with the Japanese steel industry down 30 per cent and the kind of markets that we can look for from western Canada for coal over the next: few years, almost every company with a coal licence is going to be able to take advantage and take the cheaper route with this section of the Act. I don't know who the government is trying to kid. It's a pure gift.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, this section clearly identifies the procedures under which a holding lease can be granted. There is nothing different, with the exception that there is far more discretionary power under the old Act under section 26 (5) , and that, in essence, was a holding lease. So the member for Prince Rupert can yack all he wants, but he's wrong and doesn't know what he is talking about.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, time will tell.

Section 21 approved.

On section 22.

MR. GIBSON: This is the royalty section, Mr. Chairman. 1 would just like to ask, for the record, how the minister decided on 3.5 per cent. I mean, why did he say 3.5 per cent rather than 2 per cent or 5 per cent? What kind of comparative or investigations has he made?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's basically to maintain the royalty on metallurgical coal to the same general figure as presently is being applied to metallurgical coal. On a percentage basis, with the potential of escalating value of coal, the Crown has the ability to share to a greater degree than by a fixed royalty measure without the necessity of constantly changing the fixed royalty. This percentage is one that is clearly identified, one that eliminates uncertainty among the coal mines of the province as to what kind of royalty is going to be applied in the province. It's a new approach in British Columbia, it's an interesting one, and it will be a beneficial one to the people of this province.

MR. GIBSON: I wonder if the minister could advise the committee how this compares to the Alberta royalty schedule.

HON. MR. CHABOT: The application is quite different. The Alberta system is a very complex one. I'm not about to make any comparisons; you cannot even compare from mine to mine. I know the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) recognizes that.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the minister to take the last known year for income to the province in coal royalties. Then what I'd like the minister to do is to take the 3.5 per cent and compare the income to the province on the 3.5 per cent royalty as opposed to the $1.50 that's in place now. What figures would we come to? Do you have that information?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Income would be slightly higher.

MR. LEA: Slightly higher which way?

HON. MR. CHABOT: For the Grown.

MR. LEA: Which way? Would it be slightly higher the way it is or slightly higher the way it's going to be?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Slightly higher under the percentage figure.

MR. LEA: Slightly higher. How much higher?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I'm sorry, I do not have the produced tonnage in my hip pocket, and unfortunately I cannot give it to you.

MR. LEA: Well, I'm sure the deputy does.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It would be slightly higher.

MR. LEA: I'd like to know the figures, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CHABOT: I can't give you the figures, but it's slightly higher. You can calculate it yourself, if you want, based on minehead value of $43 to $44 per ton on metal-

[ Page 2582 ]

lurgical coal and about $30 minehead value on thermal.

MR. LEA: Obviously the minister was ready for that question so he didn't bring the in-formation with him.

Also on the minehead value, what is the formula? How do you find out what the minehead value is?

HON. MR. CHABOT: That will be identified in the regulations which will be part of this legislation.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's an absolute disgrace. Again, the same as under the Forest Act, the same as under the Transit Act, we see it again that they are asking us to pass legislation based on 3.5 per cent for this new royalty but then they tell us that we don't have the formula in front of us to tell us what the minehead value is. So what we're going to do is pass blank-cheque legislation; that's what we're being asked to pass in this House. We're going to vote against this section.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I have identified for the member for Prince Rupert that the present value of metallurgical coal at the minehead is $43 to $44 per ton. You multiply by 3.5 cents and you've identified what your royalty will be. How much more clear can I be than that?

Sections 22 to 26 inclusive approved.

On section 27.

HON. M. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman , I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

On the amendment.

MR. GIBSON: Will you explain the amendment?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It just says that when the Act becomes functional, it identifies the application of the royalty and the timing of its coming into force.

Amendment approved.

Section 27 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 27, Coal Amendment Act, 1978, reported complete with amendments.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. CHABOT: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. CHABOT: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 27, Coal Amendment Act, 1978, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS.- 27

NAYS - 9

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We are coming very close and, indeed, have passed the witching hour. 1 have just been informed that it is the member for Cariboo's (Hon. Mr. Fraser's) birthday, and I'm sure that all members of the House would like to bid him the happiest of returns.

[ Page 2583 ]

MR. LAUK: I just wondered whether the House Leader is going to make a statement about the Minister of Highways. There is some concern about his health, and we're not sure what has happened to him.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I gather he's coming along very well. I know that everybody in the House would wish him the speediest of recoveries.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:07 p.m.

APPENDIX

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

13 The Hon. T. M. Waterland to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 13) intituled Range Act to amend as follows:

By deleting section 9 (2) and (3) and substituting the following:

" (2) On request or on his own initiative the regional manager may, by advertising in the prescribed manner, invite applications for a licence or permit under this Act over Crown land that is not subject to

" (a) a licence or permit entered into under this Act; or

" (b) a grazing or hay-cutting permit issued under the Grazing Act repealed by this Act; or

" (c) a grazing lease.

" (3) Where the regional manager receives an application for

" (a) a licence under section 15; or

" (b) a licence or permit to replace

" (i) a grazing or hay-cutting permit issued under the Grazing Act repealed by this Act; or

" (ii) a grazing or hay-cutting permit entered into under this Act; or

" (iii) a grazing lease he shall publish a notice of the application in the prescribed manner, unless he determines that the rights applied for will not be available for disposition by the Crown under this Act.

" (4) The regional manager shall not enter into a licence or permit under this Act, unless be advertises as provided in this section."

Section 15, lines 2 and 3: By deleting "requests" and substituting "applies for".

Section [6: By deleting section 16 and substituting the following:

"Right to apply

"16. Nothing in this Act, or in a licence or permit, prevents the holder of the licence or permit from applying to replace the licence or permit after the end of its term."

27 The Hon. J. R. Chabot to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 27) intituled Coal Amendment Act, 1978 to amend as follows:

By adding the following section after section 26:

"Commencement

"27. That part of section 22 that enacts section 29 of the Coal Act comes into force on the first day of the month following the date of assent to this Act."